Continuing problems at Fukushima

Delbert · September 1, 2013

Apparently they are storing the cooling water in leaking tanks at or near the plant. Doubtless the leaking is bad enough, but lets hope there isn't another disturbance similar to the one that preceded the current situation, resulting in all that apparently highly radioactive water being dumped into and onto who knows where.

Yes, you've guessed correctly, I'm of the view that nuclear power is the most dangerous method of power generation.

John Cuthber · September 1, 2013

Have you actually looked at the numbers?

The plant is leaking something like 0.5 TBq of radioactive Cs and Sr into the ocean each month

But the North Pacific already contains something like 100000 TBq from weapons testing.

The rather elderly Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK (not noted for earthquakes) has dumped about 39000 TBq over the last 40 years or so.

That's about 1000 TBq per year or a hundred times more than the Fukushima plant.

It's not a big problem.

Weathering of rocks containing potassium is putting more radioactive material into the sea than the nuclear plant.

overtone · September 2, 2013

That's about 1000 TBq per year or a hundred times more than the Fukushima plant.

That's almost irrelevant.

Anyone who infers safety from the existence of other kinds and exposure regimes of radiation somewhere, without even an argument let alone a careful comparison and drawing of equivalencies, is obviously not paying attention and cannot reasssure those of us who are.

Edited September 2, 2013 by overtone

John Cuthber · September 2, 2013

OK, so the fact that the total quantity of those two rather hazardous isotopes is small compared to other sources, known to cause little if any harm is "almost irrelevant".

What is relevant?

I'm sure that most people would grasp the idea that a lt of stuff is a worse problem than a little stuff without "even an argument".

What equivalencies do you need to draw between Sr and Cs in Japan vs Sr and Cs in the Irish sea?

Delbert · September 2, 2013

Have you actually looked at the numbers?

Nope.

I'm sorry but locating something worse (assuming that's the case) is no answer to anything. Like, presumably if it's not worse than (say) Chernobyl, then everything's okay. That's a policy of descent to eventual chaos

As I've said before (not here), if those that take such a viewpoint aren't willing to volunteer to help in some way to deal with any problem with such plants (even if it's just to make the coffee), in particular during the initial and subsequent emergency, then their argument in favour falls. For example, they could probably do with some help right now cleaning up the water leaking from the storage tanks. I suggest they grab their brooms and volunteer for that.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Delbert

EdEarl · September 2, 2013

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is a 2,600 km² (1,004 sq mi) area into which few people venture; thus, it has become a refuge for wildlife, an accidental nature preserve. Slowly, nature is burying the radioactivity and recycling human artifacts. This human tragedy has been good for nature, at least in the short term. The long term effects are yet to be known.

Over the years my position on the nuclear industry has varied from pro to anti. I am definitely anti bomb, but IIRC the nuclear power industry has a better safety record than the coal industry, as far as death and injury are concerned. The potential for disaster, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, are real. However, the Chernobyl disaster has a good side, and I expect a similar result from Fukushima. That does not excuse the authorities who contributed to these disasters, and the industry must strive to do better.

The world can provide power for itself with renewable resources, instead of using fossil fuel and nuclear power, and I am totally in favor of it. In the mean time, nuclear may be necessary to achieve conversion to green energy, and I will not oppose it. However, nuclear energy should only be a stop-gap measure, necessary at this time to reduce CO2 release into the atmosphere. In the long run, it should be phased out, because we do not want the entire Earth to become an Exclusion Zone.

Delbert · September 2, 2013

However, the Chernobyl disaster has a good side, and I expect a similar result from Fukushima.

Presumably you're referring to your reference to the wildlife, like nature is doing some recycling. Well, from what I read a while ago there's numerous deformities, deformed amphibians, bent trees etc. The area unsafe to enter - possibly for ten of years if not hundreds. And that's the short term. I suggest we've no idea whatsoever of the long term effects.

As for Fukushima, from what I keep reading and hearing from the media, it's worse and more precarious now than at the start.

The unknown fragility of morphogenesis may be open to all sorts of influences that perhaps we can only imagine. A few brainless cells somehow manage to organise themselves to form a complex creature. Probably affected by the merest influence. And the affect of radiation on such is probably outside our understanding.

Makes me recall the apparent fragility of the swans in my local area. Last year after hatching I watched them attempting to relocate the newly hatched cygnets to their safe night-time residence. Unfortunately their path was blocked by a coots nest. And being feisty, they forced the swans back to their incubation and daytime nest (they have two). The result was all eight cygnets were killed during the first and second night by something. But this year, the council in their infinite wisdom, cleaned out and removed the coot's nest, with the result that the swans could now take the cygnets to the night-time dormitory, resulting in five cygnets surviving to juveniles this year.

So a coot's feistiness results in death.

Like the swans, I'm also thinking of those cells during morphogenesis - the slightest influence and who knows what. So, the possibilities of what radiation might do must be too complex to imagine.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Delbert

overtone · September 2, 2013

OK, so the fact that the total quantity of those two rather hazardous isotopes is small compared to other sources, known to cause little if any harm is "almost irrelevant".

Yep. Because those other sources of those two isotopes 1) are not actually "known to cause little if any harm", 2) are not physically similar in their exposure regimes and modes of contact with people or other beings significant to people 3) do not exhaust the hazards of exposure from Fukushima - other isotopes, other stuff, is involved.

What is relevant?

information about the actual exposure regimes and effects thereof, from the bad stuff at Fukushima. The words "plume" or "variance" or "concentration" or the like need to be featured prominently. Averages need to be carefully explained and their taking defended.

Information about the cost of not being harmed by Fukushima - the price of ensuring that the bad stuff doesn't hurt people, in a country smashed by tsunami and operating in economic depression in the first place.

Information about the political background and consequences of this kind of engineering mishap - how did things get set up this way, how we might avoid such setups in the future, what the costs and benefits of such avoidance would be.

And so forth. Not information about planetwide weathering of rocks, or assessments of the radiation load in the normal diet of the average marsupial herbivore on the major continents, or comparisons of amounts involved at Fukushima with the amounts of anything summed or averaged over the whole planet, the whole Pacific Ocean, the solar system, or any other such bizarre entity of comparison.

John Cuthber · September 2, 2013

Overtone,

It may shock you, but I live on this planet.

For the whole of my life there have been quantities of Cs and Sr in the oceans that are vastly greater than those released in Japan.

Further, I grew up near the Irish sea which, as I pointed out, had a lot more of these things in it than the sea off Japan.

And, like everyone I know, it didn't do any harm so I am part of the experiment which shows that these are levels "known to cause little if any harm".

Do you have any counter evidence?

Similarly, what evidence do you have that " those two isotopes... are not physically similar in their exposure regimes and modes of contact with people or other beings significant to people "?

Given that both lots are in solution in sea water near the coast of inhabited territory where people go fishing for food.

As for "planetwide weathering of rocks, or assessments of the radiation load in the normal diet of the average marsupial herbivore on the major continents, or comparisons of amounts involved at Fukushima with the amounts of anything summed or averaged over the whole planet, the whole Pacific Ocean, the solar system, or any other such bizarre entity of comparison."

I will keep a note of it, for the next time I wish to illustrate the idea of a strawman attack.

Delbert, re

"I'm sorry but locating something worse (assuming that's the case) is no answer to anything. Like, presumably if it's not worse than (say) Chernobyl, then everything's okay. That's a policy of descent to eventual chaos"

It rather depends on whether the "worse" thing is the alternative.

It's well documented that coal fired electricity dumps more radioactive material into the environment than the nuclear power industry does.

Also the important point is not that Sellafield is worse. the point is that Sellafield'e emissions didn't kill anyone.

So, unless you are going for the homoeopathic notion that less is more," it's reasonable to assume that Fukushima's emissions to the ocean also will not.

Again, if you have any actual evidence otherwise, please share it.

Of course, none of the detracts from the fact that building a nuclear reactor in an earthquake zone is a really great idea.

But I'd be interested to hear what options you think Japan had.

Also, the design should have taken more account of the likely problems that design shouldn't have been built, but it's easy to easy that with hindsight.

It's been said that there is evidence of deliberate "cutting corners" in the design and build, and that should be investigated.

If it's true then those responsible should be held to account and (in my opinion) jailed.

But what really doesn't help anything is to run round saying that a little more Cs and Sr in the sea is a disaster.

It's a drop in the ocean.

Labelling it as anything else just distract people from the job of making sure it doesn't happen again.

Edited September 2, 2013 by John Cuthber

Delbert · September 2, 2013

Also the important point is not that Sellafield is worse. the point is that Sellafield'e emissions didn't kill anyone..

Presumably you know that for a fact.

You presumably know for a fact there hasn't been any subsequent cancers that wouldn't have occurred without Sellafield.

I suggest you don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I'm sorry, but I find your certainty quite disturbing.

Think I read this morning that the operators of Fukushima are saying some of the radiation doesn't penetrate and therefore not dangerous. Presumably they a referring to Alpha particles. And Alpha particles I suggest are extremely dangerous for at least one reason, if not a few more. The reason I refer is the reason they refer, i.e. they don't penetrate - not even tissue paper I understand. Sounds safe doesn't it. Presumably that's why that Russian died with it - because it's so safe. The poor penetration makes them almost if not totally undetectable with counters and the like. Like for example, on media reports showing white coated bods with geiger counters in polythene bags! They won't get through that. And even if they did they'd doubtless be stopped by the Geiger counter window. And even when in the body they wouldn't get through the surface of the skin - so don't even bother running counter over the body.

But how does that make them dangerous once ingested? I suggest the reason is that whilst be in the body each particle will be banging away at the immediate surrounding cells. And with particles spread all over the body the whole body may be affected. Like that Russian who was poisoned with the stuff. And its invisibility to detectors was probably the reason they took so long to find the cause.

I find said operator's statement quite disingenuous.

EdEarl · September 2, 2013

Delbert, I'd rather Chernobyl and Fukushima had not occurred. Deformities are worse now with the highest radiation levels, but nature survives and the ill effects will probably diminish asymptotically; although, it is possible a new inherited genetic disease will occur or a new species be created. Science will benefit from things learned by the event and its aftereffects.

John Cuthber · September 2, 2013

Presumably you know that for a fact.

You presumably know for a fact there hasn't been any subsequent cancers that wouldn't have occurred without Sellafield.

I suggest you don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I'm sorry, but I find your certainty quite disturbing.

Think I read this morning that the operators of Fukushima are saying some of the radiation doesn't penetrate and therefore not dangerous. Presumably they a referring to Alpha particles. And Alpha particles I suggest are extremely dangerous for at least one reason, if not a few more. The reason I refer is the reason they refer, i.e. they don't penetrate - not even tissue paper I understand. Sounds safe doesn't it. Presumably that's why that Russian died with it - because it's so safe. The poor penetration makes them almost if not totally undetectable with counters and the like. Like for example, on media reports showing white coated bods with geiger counters in polythene bags! They won't get through that. And even if they did they'd doubtless be stopped by the Geiger counter window. And even when in the body they wouldn't get through the surface of the skin - so don't even bother running counter over the body.

But how does that make them dangerous once ingested? I suggest the reason is that whilst be in the body each particle will be banging away at the immediate surrounding cells. And with particles spread all over the body the whole body may be affected. Like that Russian who was poisoned with the stuff. And its invisibility to detectors was probably the reason they took so long to find the cause.

I find said operator's statement quite disingenuous.

Well, you didn't like what I first said

"known to cause little if any harm".

so I dumbed it down a bit to

" Sellafield'e emissions didn't kill anyone"

But I'm still waiting for your evidence that I'm wrong.

And also, I'm waiting for you to address the other point.

No power source is risk free.

"Think I read this morning that the operators of Fukushima "

Neither of us is responsible for what those people say.

"Presumably they a referring to Alpha particles."

So, you didn't check the actual numbers and you are making presumptions about what people mean.

Planning to do any science?

" The poor penetration makes them almost if not totally undetectable "

Odd, I thought that was exactly how they found out what killed Mr Litvinenko, they detected this "undetectable" radiation then tracked it across London.

The actual mass of material used was so small that it would have been impossible to detect by any other technique.

On the bright side, I agree with you about this

"I find said operator's statement quite disingenuous."

overtone · September 2, 2013

For the whole of my life there have been quantities of Cs and Sr in the oceans that are vastly greater than those released in Japan.

Irrelevant. And meaningless if it were relevant.

Further, I grew up near the Irish sea which, as I pointed out, had a lot more of these things in it than the sea off Japan.

Irrelevant. And meaningless if it were relevant.

And, like everyone I know, it didn't do any harm so I am part of the experiment which shows that these are levels "known to cause little if any harm".

Not known by you to have caused your personal acquaintances any harm visible to you is a long way from "known to have caused little if any harm". It's not even in the right direction, actually - it is evidence of what, lack of information on your part?

Do you have any counter evidence?

Of what? Of the apparent circumstance that you don't know whether or not even the much diluted and spread out increase in the general near ocean environmental levels of a couple of specific isotopes is capable of doing harm to you and your friends? I have no information about your knowledge of stuff, and no way to get any. And that would be a matter for another thread.

Similarly, what evidence do you have that " those two isotopes... are not physically similar in their exposure regimes and modes of contact with people or other beings significant to people "?

The radically different temporal and physical circumstances of their release and environment, the combinations and ratios of stuff released with them, the different biological, physical, and cultural relations with the ocean in the two places, and so forth.

We already had you comparing the total tonnage of some of the stuff released from Fukushima so far (or at first, not sure - you do realize its still happening, right?) with the total tonnage of generally similar isotopes released from the weathering of rocks on the planet - a comparison so ridiculous even you immediately labeled it a strawman argument when I threw it back. What do I need evidence of, there?

Given that both lots are in solution in sea water near the coast of inhabited territory where people go fishing for food.

Once again: what we need:

information about the actual exposure regimes and effects thereof, from the bad stuff at Fukushima. The words "plume" or "variance" or "concentration" or the like need to be featured prominently. Averages need to be carefully explained and their taking defended.

Information about the cost of not being harmed by Fukushima - the price of ensuring that the bad stuff doesn't hurt people, in a country smashed by tsunami and operating in economic depression in the first place.

Information about the political background and consequences of this kind of engineering mishap - how did things get set up this way, how we might avoid such setups in the future, what the costs and benefits of such avoidance would be.

For example: Are the Fukushima contaminants actually "in solution" the same way the Irish Sea contaminants are? Given the currents and release modes and so forth, almost certainly not. But that is something you could argue, if you have information.

Have the Irish Sea contaminants been harmless? Again, almost certainly not - but you could argue for the assertion, if you have evidence.

What you can't do is argue from near-complete ignorance against apparent and continuing dangers, visible at a glance.

John Cuthber · September 3, 2013

So, you think dose is irrelevant.

OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think many will share it.

Once again you are making assumptions- in this case of my ignorance.

However there have been studies on the potential risk from living near Sellafield and , as far as I recall, no significant risk was found.

You seem ignorant of that.

Could you please list the insoluble compounds of Cs that you believe are present, - here's a clue, it's one of the alkali metals and they form very few insoluble salts.

Again, whose governance are we showing up here?

You might have better luck with the Sr, but, don't forget the actual quantities are small and the dilutions are huge.

You need to find materials that are insoluble at the nanogram per litre level and below.

Most rocks etc are more soluble than that.

Had you thought that through?

If you can come up with some plausible solid formed from nuclear waste and sea water, your next problem is to show why it's different in Japan. Good luck with that.

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertions like "Have the Irish Sea contaminants been harmless? Again, almost certainly not -"

Get back to us when you have some evidence.

Delbert · September 3, 2013

Delbert, re

"I'm sorry but locating something worse (assuming that's the case) is no answer to anything. Like, presumably if it's not worse than (say) Chernobyl, then everything's okay. That's a policy of descent to eventual chaos"

It rather depends on whether the "worse" thing is the alternative.

Irrelevant, chaos and madness. I was surprised you didn't mention smoking as a comparison. A number of individuals I know clearly died of problems caused by smoking - in including my father. And then there's alcohol! Taking your philosophy, such activities could well make just about any other dodgy human activity perfectly safe in comparison.

You keep asking for figures, well I haven't any. Like a lot of things in life where we may not have 'figures', and can only make a judgement not to do it, keep clear or don't touch it with a barge pole. I for one wouldn't go anywhere near the Fukushima plant, let alone volunteer to sweep up the residue from the leaking storage tanks.

As a general point, I can't reconcile your apparent view that nuclear power is quite safe, and at the same time we have this plant clearly still out of control. And probably will still be for a very long time. How many reactors was it that melted down? What on earth does one do with them? And then there's Chernobyl with the encasement apparently still a cause for concern. How many hundreds of years will they have to be encased and still giving problems?

Again, those who like nuclear power should feel free to volunteer to help with the clear-up, if not being there and helping out at the beginning during the initial loss of control (even if it's only to make the coffee). If they wouldn't be prepared to do such, then as far as I'm concerned their argument falls.

I seem to recall with Chernobyl some brave souls had to fly over the thing to dump covering material. I also recall reading they, and other workers at the site, died fairly soon afterwards.

I'm sorry, figures or no figures, I think I'm expressing a valid viewpoint.

John Cuthber · September 3, 2013

Odd, you have quoted me saying "It rather depends on whether the "worse" thing is the alternative." but not read or understood it.

Nor did you look at the next line (which , btw makes it look like you are "cherry picking")

It's well documented that coal fired electricity dumps more radioactive material into the environment than the nuclear power industry does.

Smoking isn't an alternative to nuclear power.

On the other hand, coal power is.

So, given the two alternatives, it seems odd that you despise the one that dumps less nuclear material into the environment.

You are not seeking to compare apples with oranges you are comparing apples with dry-stone-walling.

Drinking and smoking have practically nothing to do with this and introducing them makes you look silly.

Why is it that you consider it reasonable to compare water borne radioactivity flushed out to sea with that inhaled by people in Chernobyl, but you don't accept that it's valid to compare it with other radioactivity, also flushed into the sea?

Is it because one of them agrees with your world view and the other doesn't?

Do you worry that your world view includes things like insoluble caesium compounds and is, accordingly, untrustworthy?

(And, did you think I was going to forget about that?)

We know what doses the heroic clean up team in Chernobyl experienced and we know what it did to them.

And we know that the doses from the water leaking from Fukushima are vastly lower.

Why do you want to pretend that they are the same?

Re "Again, those who like nuclear power should feel free to volunteer to help with the clear-up, if not being there and helping out at the beginning during the initial loss of control (even if it's only to make the coffee). If they wouldn't be prepared to do such, then as far as I'm concerned their argument falls. "

So, I take it you get involved in mine rescues.

Or are you being a hipocrite?

And this

"I'm sorry, figures or no figures, I think I'm expressing a valid viewpoint. " is very close to being an argument from ignorance.

It is a viewpoint,

It's possibly valid per se,

But it's sure as hell not a scientifically valid one and this site isn't called "guessworkandbiasforums"

So, I suggest that you come back with some evidence.

overtone · September 3, 2013

So, you think dose is irrelevant.

Trolling now?

To repeat for the fifth time - the actual dosage regime is critical, that is one of my major and most emphasized claims, and your failure to account for it is a major flaw in your arguments here.

OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think many will share it.

I don't know exactly why the very simple and several times repeated posting of mine that the key information necessary for evaluating Fukushimas hazards is the actual exposure regimes and so forth inflicted on the various people and environments by Fukushima - not the ocean wide or planetary averages, not the total tonnage of release, not the year and geographical area averaged events How many times, and in how many different ways, do I have to repeat that before you are willing or able to deal with it?

Once again you are making assumptions- in this case of my ignorance.

That's just a courtesy. I could make other assumptions to explain your posting, if you prefer.

However there have been studies on the potential risk from living near Sellafield and , as far as I recall, no significant risk was found

Fascinating. Let's assume that the threats from Sellafield were and are limited in time and space to the assumptions of the studies, the studies were well done by independent parties with reputations for integrity, were not limited to a narrow range of cancers or other a priori presumption of harms, included economic and political factors, and so forth, which would make them unique in all of nuclear mishap history - but hey, you wouldn't be posting as you are otherwise, right?

Given those assumptions, the only remaining difficulty would be that the thread is about Fukushima, and the mishap at Fukushima differes from the travesty of Sellafield in a variety of possibly critical ways (listed above, or otherwise obvious) so that the comparison is only relevant as background or contextual information. So thank you for the side information, and we can return to the problems of Fukushima - OK?

Could you please list the insoluble compounds of Cs that you believe are present, - here's a clue, it's one of the alkali metals and they form very few insoluble salts.

Again, whose governance are we showing up here?

You might have better luck with the Sr, but, don't forget the actual quantities are small and the dilutions are huge.

You need to find materials that are insoluble at the nanogram per litre level and below.

Most rocks etc are more soluble than that.

Had you thought that through?

This kind of irrelevant incomprehension is what I am objecting to about your posts - not ignorance, but inability or unwillingness to deal with the issues at hand.

You can't assume "dilution" on that scale. You can't assume affects limited to, or even focused on, the immediate neighborhood of Fukushima. You can't by presumption use a couple of isotopes as proxies for the rest of the problem. You can't deal with the exposure and medical or ecological effects from Fukushima by averaging over the Sea of Japan, the Pacific Ocean, or as you attempted above the planetwide erosion of rocks everywhere. And so forth. That's not ignorance, it's nonsense - incomprehension of the information you have.

Edited September 3, 2013 by overtone

John Cuthber · September 3, 2013

"You can't by presumption use a couple of isotopes as proxies for the rest of the problem. "

I'm not doing it by "presumption", I'm doing it because those two isotopes are often used as markers of contamination - not least because one of them is a serious radiotoxicological hazard.

"Given those assumptions, the only remaining difficulty would be that the thread is about Fukushima,...>"

In know, dreadful isn't it.science has this weird habit of assuming that if something happens in one set of conditions then something similar will happen in a similar set of conditions?

If you went out in the rain yesterday in Ireland, and got wet, would it be reasonable - at least as a starting point- to assume that if you went out in the rain tomorrow in Japan, you would also get wet?

I can't tell you about 40 years of history of the leak at Fukushima- because it hasn't been there for 40 years, but I can tell you about a bigger leak that has been.

Are you saying it's unreasonable to extrapolate?

If so perhaps you should explain to Delbert who think's it's just fine to extrapolate to the risks experienced by the clean up team in Chernobyl.

Odd as it may seem, I didn't say the studies were perfect.

However, the obvious fact is that if there were a lot of deaths people would notice. No such effect was noticed.
Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?

" You can't deal with the exposure and medical or ecological effects from Fukushima by averaging over the Sea of Japan,"

The initial quake happened a couple of years ago, so the leak is happening over that sort of timescale.

I can't find data for the coast of Japan (incidentally, isn't the "sea of Japan" on the other side), but the gulf stream averages about 4 miles an hour

In two years it would go three times round the world.

So, it is actually reasonable to assume that the pollution is fairly well mixed over that sort of time-scale.

You just assumed it wasn't.

"You can't assume "dilution" on that scale."

Nonsense, that's the one thing you can assume- it sure won't have been concentrated: it will have undergone dilution, otherwise it won't have got to that scale.

Seriously, I'm saying that the sea is big compared to 300 tons of water, and you are saying that's an "assumption"

And so forth. That's not ignorance, it's nonsense - incomprehension of the information you have

overtone · September 4, 2013

I'm not doing it by "presumption", I'm doing it because those two isotopes are often used as markers of contamination

Uh, how is that different from "by presumption"?

In know, dreadful isn't it.science has this weird habit of assuming that if something happens in one set of conditions then something similar will happen in a similar set of conditions?

The first wrong assumption is that you know all of what happened in the first set of conditions - that isn't the problem here, though, because its irrelevant to the thread. The assumption that is the problem is that the two sets of conditions are similar. That is not a wierd habit of science, that is a basic error of analysis that a scientist would take pains to avoid. They appear quite different, in ways listed for you above, and you have not explained how it is that the similarity remains despite the obvious differences.

Are you saying it's unreasonable to extrapolate?

In this careless and uninformed manner, based on a variety of ridiculous claims and unsupported assumptions and naive acceptance of other people's errors, yes of course.

Odd as it may seem, I didn't say the studies were perfect.

However, the obvious fact is that if there were a lot of deaths people would notice

You assumed the studies were competent and honest and thorough. That is a controversial assumption (not everyone thinks "deaths" are the primary measure, or that even a fairly large number of them would be "noticed" using the methods employed). You also simply assumed they were relevant, which is without support in evidence or argument.

" You can't deal with the exposure and medical or ecological effects from Fukushima by averaging over the Sea of Japan,"

The initial quake happened a couple of years ago, so the leak is happening over that sort of timescale.

That's not a time scale.

I can't find data for the coast of Japan

So stop there, and record the fact that you don't have the central and most significant data you need to continue your argument - it's all bullshit from now on.

(incidentally, isn't the "sea of Japan" on the other side),

It's the frigging Pacific Ocean, which I'm sure contains far more radiation in total than Fukushima has leaked into it. So?

but the gulf stream averages about 4 miles an hour
In two years it would go three times round the world.

There are quite a few seas and currents and so forth irrelevant to this issue. Are you going to list them one post at a time?

By the current maps and models the stuff from Fukushima is removed from the coastal area adjacent quite rapidly and transported to the other side of the Pacific Ocean in a couple of years. What that means is that your narrow focus on damage done to the coastal region near Fukushima is missing quite a bit - the models suggest the exposure regime may be more severe off the coast of California than off the coast of Japan, for example. Even Hawaii is in the loop.

So, it is actually reasonable to assume that the pollution is fairly well mixed over that sort of time-scale

No, it isn't. It's radically bad, obviously invalid, downright dumb, to do that. You have to run the numbers and consider the physical facts involved. There is no nuclear waste fairy in the sky stirring the ocean to prevent this stuff from pooling and pluming and traveling in concentration. Oceans do not magically mix themselves to create mathematical averages of stuff throughout their volumes - not salt, not temperature, not shoes washed overboard, not algae blooms, not mercury, not PCBs, not oil, and not radwaste.

You just assumed it wasn't.

I pointed out that it wasn't - that's an observation of the ocean in general, and its speciofic application based on past experiences and computer modeling of specifically Fukushima and the currents etc involved.

Here is what I posted:

What is relevant?

information about the actual exposure regimes and effects thereof, from the bad stuff at Fukushima. The words "plume" or "variance" or "concentration" or the like need to be featured prominently. Averages need to be carefully explained and their taking defended.

Information about the cost of not being harmed by Fukushima - the price of ensuring that the bad stuff doesn't hurt people, in a country smashed by tsunami and operating in economic depression in the first place.

Information about the political background and consequences of this kind of engineering mishap - how did things get set up this way, how we might avoid such setups in the future, what the costs and benefits of such avoidance would be.

What you are posting avoids everything on that list, replacing it with assumptions not supported by evidence and comparisons ridiculous beyond parody - the Gulf Stream? really, dude?

Seriously, I'm saying that the sea is big compared to 300 tons of water, and you are saying that's an "assumption"

No, that's not what you said. And you know that's not what you said, and not what I called an assumption. There is no way you could have mistaken my repeated, specific, and frankly obvious objections to your assumptions of dilution as objections to your comparsions of total quantity - especially not when I was mocking exactly that line of reasoning, and calling you out for presenting such quantity comparisons as relevant basis for arguments about exposure regimes etc.

You have now presented the issue of motive, what you up to here: that is not believable as an honest posting, and you have above posted several talking points of the coopted punditry currently propagandizing for nukes (more radioactive waste "into the environment" from coal plants than from nukes, that kind of bs).

Edited September 4, 2013 by overtone

John Cuthber · September 4, 2013

Uh, how is that different from "by presumption"?

So stop there, and record the fact that you don't have the central and most significant data you need to continue your argument - it's all bullshit from now on.

Because it's based on data.

No, it's your turn to stop.

You berate me for not supplying this item of data, but you have provided exactly none.

By your own argument you should stop.

Incidentally,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

overtone · September 4, 2013

You berate me for not supplying this item of data, but you have provided exactly none.

By your own argument you should stop

I have provided references and observations of considerable physical evidence for my contentions here, and you have provided some that I omitted for reasons of blatancy (such as the fact that you have no data regarding the exposure regime afflicting the coastal region near Fukushima, and thus no basis for any comparisons of that with supposed data from other exposure regimes even if it were legit - which was one of my contentions I didn't think needed support, but thanks anyway. )

I'm not sure why you would fail to recognize physical circumstances and observations of physical fact (such as the circumstance that radwaste from Fukushima enters the environment in concentrated plumes and spurts) as "data" - I prefer basis and evidence and such terms - but it may have something to do with the complete lack of such support for your own contentions and the near-total irrelevancy of the physical circumstances you do bring up.

Incidentally,

http://www.scientifi...n-nuclear-waste

You out yourself: that is one of the more famous and well-analyzed items of wingnut propaganda to have appeared in the nuclear power debates in the US.

To its partial and demurral ridden credit, Scientific American actually apologized for the misleading nature of that article, and published a partial correction of a couple of the worst phrasings - perhaps you could provide a link to the apology and correction as well? it appeared in a subsequent issue - but they never admitted they got punked as badly as they did. It would be pretty funny, in an Aston Kutcher sort of way, if it hadn't suckered so many pre-propagandized readers.

A lot of people read that article, or maybe the headline, and thought they had been informed by Scientific American that coal fired power plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants. Surely you didn't mean to imply that here?

In addition, of course, as with central and emphasized segments of almost every single one of your posts here, the item is completely irrelevant to the thread. You are consistently refusing to address Fukushima or its continuing problems - why is that?

Edited September 4, 2013 by overtone

John Cuthber · September 4, 2013

"You out yourself: that is one of the more famous and well-analyzed items of wingnut propaganda to have appeared in the nuclear power debates in the US."

Glad you liked it.

I hoped it would persuade you to actually provide some numbers (by way of refutation) you didn't, which is slightly disappointing though no shock.

Sign In

Continuing problems at Fukushima

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

imatfaal

overtone

John Cuthber

Important Information