Continuing problems at Fukushima

[Moontanman]

The idea that nuclear reactor radiation is somehow qualitatively different than any other radiation can be shown to be bogus simply by the idea of dilution, if the radiation released by the Japanese reactor was spread evenly around the world would it be a threat?

 

I assert no, as I indicated earlier, Ivy Mike, a nuclear explosion released many tens of tons of radioactive debris to the earth's environment, how many tons did Fukushima release?

 

I think a straight up comparison is relevant here..

[overtone]

The idea that nuclear reactor radiation is somehow qualitatively different than any other radiation can be shown to be bogus

So? Is anyone here confused about that?

 

 

I assert no, as I indicated earlier, Ivy Mike, a nuclear explosion released many tens of tons of radioactive debris to the earth's environment, how many tons did Fukushima release?

 

I think a straight up comparison is relevant here

Works for me - I can see relevant info about the problems at Fukushima emerging from such a comparison. I have no way of making it myself, because the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike (if in fact it was ever collected). but if you can do it more power to ya.

 

You need to compare not only the different forms of the radiation - different chemicals involved, etc - but the different exposure regimes actually suffered by the exposed in both events (Ivy Mike's was obviously much more diluted from its originally more intense emission, the biological and oceanographic environment it was released into was much different, and so forth) and how they faired afterwards.

 

edit in: you might have more luck with Castle Bravo - although much bigger, and so trickier to compare, it was a screwup that forced public release of some information about it like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Castle_Bravo_fish_contamination_map.png

Edited October 2, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

So? Is anyone here confused about that?

 

 

Works for me - I can see relevant info about the problems at Fukushima emerging from such a comparison. I have no way of making it myself, because the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike (if in fact it was ever collected). but if you can do it more power to ya.

 

You need to compare not only the different forms of the radiation - different chemicals involved, etc - but the different exposure regimes actually suffered by the exposed in both events (Ivy Mike's was obviously much more diluted from its originally more intense emission, the biological and oceanographic environment it was released into was much different, and so forth) and how they faired afterwards.

 

Seriously Overtone?

 

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

 

 

The primary stage was a TX-5 boosted fission bomb in a separate space atop the assembly (so it would not freeze, rendering it inoperable). The "secondary" fusion stage used liquid deuterium despite the difficulty of handling this material, because this fuel simplified the experiment, and made the results easier to analyze. Running down the center of the flask which held it, was a cylindrical rod of plutonium (the "spark plug") to ignite the fusion reaction. Surrounding this assembly was a five-ton (4.5 tonne) natural uranium "tamper". The exterior of the tamper was lined with sheets of lead and polyethylene, which formed a radiation channel to conduct X-rays from the primary to secondary. (The function of the X-rays was to hydrodynamically compress the secondary, increasing the density and temperature of the deuterium to the level needed to sustain a thermonuclear reaction, and compress the sparkplug tosupercriticality ignition.) The outermost layer was a steel casing 10–12 inches (25–30 cm) thick. The entire assembly, nicknamed "Sausage", measured 80 inches (2.03 m) in diameter and 244 inches (6.19 m) in height and weighed about 54 tons.

The entire Mike device (including cryogenic equipment) weighed 82 short tons (73.8 metric tonnes), and was housed in a large corrugated-aluminium building called a "shot cab" which was set up on the Pacific island of Elugelab, part of the Enewetak atoll.

In addition to that...

 

[/size]

A regular [/size]fission bomb (the "primary") at one end was used to create the conditions needed to initiate the fusion reaction.[/size]

 

This was seriously large amount of radioactive material...

 

 

Detonation[edit]

 

 

 

Ivy Mike test video

 

 

Enewetak Atoll, before Mike shot. Note island of Elugelab on left.

 

 

Enewetak Atoll, after Mike shot. Note crater on left.

The test was carried out at 07:15 A.M local time on November 1, 1952 (19:15 October 31 GMT). It produced a yield estimated in the range of 10.4–12 megatons of TNT. However, 77% of the final yield came from fast fission of the uranium tamper, which meant that the device produced large amounts of fallout.

The fireball was approximately 3.25 miles (5.2 km) wide, and the mushroom cloud rose to an altitude of 57,000 feet (17.0 km) in less than 90 seconds. One minute later it had reached 108,000 feet (33.0 km), before stabilizing at 136,000 feet (25 miles or 37.0 km) with the top eventually spreading out to a diameter of 100 miles (161 km) with a stem 20 miles (32 km) wide.

The blast created a crater 6,240 feet (1.9 km) in diameter and 164 feet (50 m) deep where Elugelab had once been;^%5B3%5D the blast and water waves from the explosion (some waves up to twenty feet high) stripped the test islands clean of vegetation, as observed by a helicopter survey within 60 minutes after the test, by which time the mushroom cloud and steam were blown away. Radioactive coral debris fell upon ships positioned 35 miles (48 km) from the blast, and the immediate area around the atoll was heavily contaminated for some time. Produced by intensely concentrated neutron flux about the

 

detonation site were two new elements, einsteinium and fermium.^%5B4%5D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{Can the two really be compared?}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Radioactive_release

 

The release of radioisotopes from the nuclear fuel was largely controlled by their boiling points, and the majority of the radioactivity present in the core was retained in the reactor.

All of the noble gases, including krypton and xenon, contained within the reactor were released immediately into the atmosphere by the first steam explosion.[105]

50 to 60% of all core radio-iodine in the reactor, containing about 1760 PBq (1760 × 1015 becquerels), which in mass units is 0.4 kg of iodine-131, was released, as a mixture of sublimed vapor, solid particles, and organic iodine compounds. Half life 8 days.[105] The activity of any radioisotope, and therefore the quantity of that isotope remaining, after 7 decay half lifes have passed, is less than 1% of its initial magnitude,[108] and it continues to reduce beyond 0.78% after 7 half lifes to 0.098% remaining after 10 half lifes have passed and so on.[109][110]

20 to 40% of all core caesium-137 was released, 85 PBq in all.[105][111] Caesium was released in aerosol form; caesium-137, along with isotopes of strontium, are the two primary elements preventing the Chernobyl exclusion zone being re-inhabited.[112] The caesium-137 activity represented by 8.5 × 1016 Bq, would be produced by 24 kilograms of caesium-137.[112] Cs-137 has a half life of 30 years.[105]

Tellurium-132, half life 78 hours, an estimated 1150 PBq was released.[105]

Xenon-133, the total radioactivity atmospheric release is estimated at 5200 PBq, Xe-133 has a half-life of 5 days.[105]

An early estimate for total nuclear fuel material released to the environment was 3 ± 1.5%; this was later revised to 3.5 ± 0.5%. This corresponds to the atmospheric emission of 6 t of fragmented fuel.[107]

 

Edited October 2, 2013 by Moontanman

[overtone]

 

 

Seriously Overtone?

Seriously what?

 

It's your idea. I think it's possible to get some info useful in a discussion fo Fukushima from it, but I don't think I have access to the necessary data on Ivy Mike's aftermath. If you do, have at 'er.

[Moontanman]

Seriously what?

 

It's your idea. I think it's possible to get some info useful in a discussion fo Fukushima from it, but I don't think I have access to the necessary data on Ivy Mike's aftermath. If you do, have at 'er.

 

 

 

I just gave it, many tons of radioisotopes, can it be said that Fukushima released tons of radio isotopes?

I am not talking about tons of contaminated material but tons of actual radioactive isotopes...

[overtone]

 

I just gave it, many tons of radioisotopes, can it be said that Fukushima released tons of radio isotopes?

I am not talking about tons of contaminated material but tons of actual radioactive isotopes.

So?

 

What were the actual exposure regimes (including the far flung ones more directly comparable with likely Fukushima exposures), involving which isotopes, and to what effects? Keep in mind that this stuff took place over many years - the evacuation of the bomb site was in advance, and exposure deliberately prevented to a great degree.

 

Here is what I consider to be a key sentence from Wiki's account of Castle Bravo's medical followup:

 

For the first decade after the test, the effects were ambiguous and statistically difficult to correlate to radiation exposure:

That was from a very severe set of exposures.

[Moontanman]

So?

 

What were the actual exposure regimes (including the far flung ones more directly comparable with likely Fukushima exposures), involving which isotopes, and to what effects? Keep in mind that this stuff took place over many years - the evacuation of the bomb site was in advance, and exposure deliberately prevented to a great degree.

 

Here is what I consider to be a key sentence from Wiki's account of Castle Bravo's medical followup:

 

That was from a very severe set of exposures.

 

 

 

My point exactly...

[overtone]

 

 

That was from a very severe set of exposures.

 

My point exactly.

I doubt that.

 

My point was that even very severe and serious radiation exposure damage, even within a small, defined, geographical isolated, easily studied and exposure verified group, is difficult to establish - takes ten years or more to begin to show up, generations to manifest fully. Keep that in mind when people post estimates of the casualties from Chernobyl, TMI, Sellafield, and yes Fukushima - when nobody has even identified all the exposed, let alone measured the exposure regimes and diligently followed them all for twenty or thirty years and a couple of generations.

 

The first notable worrisome sign from the Castle Bravo exposures was a spike in stillbirths and miscarriages a few months later, along with some complaints of infertility. That spike was transient, however, and nothing noticeable happened for a long time after it passed. In that context, we note that there was a spike in recorded stillbirths and miscarriages at the main hospital handling people living on the higher land a few miles downwind from Three Mile Island a few months after the event, but it was transient, nobody knows if it involved exposure, and it is never included among the harms or casualties of that event.

[John Cuthber]

Lets see what happened there

Moontan says " Ivy Mike, a nuclear explosion released many tens of tons of radioactive debris to the earth's environment, how many tons did Fukushima release?

I think a straight up comparison is relevant here.."

Overtone says

"the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike "

Moontan provides that data.

Overtone moves the goalposts.

"So?

What were the actual exposure regimes (including the far flung ones more directly comparable with likely Fukushima exposures), involving which isotopes, and to what effects? "

 

Why did he suddenly change tack there?

[Moontanman]

An interesting assessment of the Fukushima accident...

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html?wpsrc=upworthy

[John Cuthber]

An interesting assessment of the Fukushima accident...

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html?wpsrc=upworthy

Thanks for posting that. It's very interesting.

I guess I should point out that The guys at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are not the only group who looked into the issues involved. Other countries have also got expert groups. Those groups are generally very well informed and composed of experts in the fields involved.

On the other hand, they don't get (or generally seek) much publicity.

[overtone]

Overtone says

"the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike "

Moontan provides that data.

Overtone moves the goalposts.

- - - - -

Why did he suddenly change tack there?

 

 

Here's what I posted:

 

. I have no way of making it myself, because the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike (if in fact it was ever collected). but if you can do it more power to ya.

 

You need to compare not only the different forms of the radiation - different chemicals involved, etc - but the different exposure regimes actually suffered by the exposed in both events (Ivy Mike's was obviously much more diluted from its originally more intense emission, the biological and oceanographic environment it was released into was much different, and so forth) and how they faired afterwards.

1) Note that the "goalposts" -

 

a description of what kinds of data would be relevant in a comparison of the radiation exposure risks and other continuing problems between Ivy Mike and Fukushima (two quite dissimilar events - fairly difficult to compare, as requested, "straight up").-

 

although not exhaustive, are reasonably explicit and completely consistent with all my posting here

 

- tediously and unnecessarily repetitious, a reasonable person might comment, but I have an idea who I'm dealing with. I have been talking about exposure regimes and so forth throughout, repeatedly emphasizing their importance in evaluating the risks and continuing problems of Fukushima, but with these guys you can't expect actual discussion with continuity and so forth based on one's earlier posting. It's like dealing with ADD kids - you are always starting over. So I wrote it out again.

 

2) Moontanman provided no such data. He posted the Wiki page for Ivy Mike, which as I already knew (since I had embarked on an honest discussion) contained nothing of the kind. I posted about Castle Bravo with some relevant stuff, which would have been better - there is some exposure regime info available there on Wiki and other easily reached sources, which with careful reasoning could involve even some of the same ocean currents as Fukushima etc - but that was ignored.

 

and finally 3) no comparison with Fukushima's continuing problems, radiation exposure risk or anything else, is made, so I have nothing to reply to relevant to the thread.

 

Leaving this:

 

Lets see what happened there

What happened there was that "Cuthber" committed what should be a moderated offense on this kind of forum - that's a flagrant and ugly type of trolling, and that poster needs to rethink their behavior.

 

Meanwhile, re the Slate link:

 

1) overall: Lawrence Livermore researchers and especially its PR reps are generally active promoters of nuke power, not only as attracted techies and engineers but partly financed by and economically closely connected with the profiting corporations and benefiting government agencies. They have reasonably integrity, and publish good numbers, but they are not an independent source of info about nukes.

 

2)

 

- News reports fueled the widespread view among the general public that much of eastern Japan—including Tokyo, about 150 miles southwest of Fukushima—would be badly contaminated if the struggle to contain the radiation leaks failed.

That is not accurate, as one can verify by reviewing those news reports etc. What was reported by some was that there was a risk of such disaster if things went wrong in certain ways, and that was fact. The false impressions contained in the early news were reassurances - that the risk of meltdown had passed a couple days after the wave, for example, a PR claim from TEPCO which was widely spread and completely false.

 

 

 

After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns.

Even granting the accuracy of that description of Livermore's findings (and the computer simulations in the first place) note that it took several days to determine even computer model partial safety for Tokyo, and the reactors had passed some serious milestones by then - before that the serious concern was completely justified, and not some artifact of sensational news reporting.

 

 

 

The administration was bound by exposure-level standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Those standards don't translate into "danger" in the commonly used sense of the word; exposure at such low levels doesn't make people sick or render them more likely to get cancer someday. There's a slightly higher risk of fatal cancer—an additional 0.5 percent—for those who receive a cumulative lifetime dose of 100 millisieverts (a measure of radiation’s effect on the body).

Note the weasel wording - the claim that you won't get sick, suffer harm, or "get cancer some day", morphs into a reassurance that if your lifetime exposure is also very limited your risk of a fatal cancer of the kinds studied from just this is very low -

 

that last is not at all the same thing as the initial not being threatened with getting sick or suffering harm some day, as the parents of stillbirths, thyroid cancer sufferers, and people who must treat chest and dental X-rays or long times in high altitude planes with caution for the rest of their lives can verify.

 

The reporter has outed themselves there - they are either not alert or complicit in deception, and we must be wary.

 

continuing:

 

modeling that shows the worst-plausible releases from one or more reactors at Fukushima would not cross [the U.S. guidelines] in Tokyo even in the event of adverse weather," Holdren wrote. "Only with big releases from the spent-fuel pools, combined with even more perverse weather than [the scientists deemed realistic], could the [guidelines] be crossed in Tokyo, and even then, according to the modeling to date, not by much," so "even in these extreme circumstances, sheltering in place might be all you'd want to do."

The "worst plausible" scenario referred to there would not have included an earthquake and tsunami of the size experienced, a complete takeout of even emergency power, and so forth, before the accident, of course. We know that because it didn't.

 

We have quite a bit of real world experience with what can happen when policy makers rely too carelessly on what some nuke professionals regard as "plausible", and we are entitled to entertain doubts if obvious factors are visible that weem to have been overlooked or minimized.

 

But the reporter passes on that:

 

 

 

Nobody can say for sure how events would have unfolded if the worst had happened at Fukushima. Even the most sophisticated computer models are fallible.

They could reason and extrapolate and question and consider, especially regarding what "the worst" would have been - far more than spent fuel pile 4 blowing and burning out of control, which was the worst they considered.

 

But the public deserves to know what the best available science shows. Whatever conclusions people draw about the implications of the accident, the following should be borne in mind: The claim that an evacuation of Tokyo could have been necessary is based on flimsy, easily rebuttable evidence

Well, no: according to the article itself (with its glib reassurances in place) all it would have taken would have been a more serious set of explosions from the reactors not already in shutdown, and a very unusual but not unprecedented steady wind of sufficient strength.

 

Happy as we were to discover, in hindsight, that what we had feared then could have been happening was not happening, that does not change the risk assessments of the future. We were very, very lucky at Fukushima. Still are - so far, and so far as we know.

Edited October 3, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

"1) Note that the "goalposts" -

a description of what kinds of data would be relevant in a comparison of the radiation exposure risks and other continuing problems between Ivy Mike and Fukushima (two quite dissimilar events - fairly difficult to compare, as requested, "straight up").-

although not exhaustive, are reasonably explicit and completely consistent with all my posting here"

Note also that they are different from those goalposts set out and accepted originally.

"Works for me - I can see relevant info about the problems at Fukushima emerging from such a comparison."

but written off as impossible/ impractical because

"because the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike (if in fact it was ever collected)." "

With the comment

"but if you can do it more power to ya."

So he did, and that's when you moved the goalposts.

so this

"What happened there was that "Cuthber" committed what should be a moderated offense on this kind of forum - that's a flagrant and ugly type of trolling, and that poster needs to rethink their behavior."

looks a bit silly.

What I did was point out that you moved the goalpost to get round the fact that you said something that plainly wasn't true.

You said

"the nuke people have hidden the relevant data"

And Moontan showed that data- data that you had said would be useful if we could get it.

Then you tried to cover your (slanderous) error by saying that the data wasn't important anyway.

[overtone]

 

 

Note also that they are different from those goalposts set out and accepted originally.

They are exactly the same - vocabulary, everything - as in every post I have made on this thread, first to this.

 

 

 

And Moontan showed that data- data that you had said would be useful if we could get it.

The data I said would be useful there, in the very same post he replied to, described explicitly and quoted by him in his reply posting, was the same as throughout this thread - this, with better spelling:

 

You need to compare not only the different forms of the radiation - different chemicals involved, etc - but the different exposure regimes actually suffered by the exposed in both events - - - - and how they fared afterwards.

Nothing in his link or post matches that, even approximately.

 

Neither does anyuthing in yours.

 

One cannot compare the risks and harms from various radiation exposure regimes without some description of what those exposure regimes are or were. That isn't a deep or profound observation. We're not talking rocket science here.

 

 

 

Then you tried to cover your (slanderous) error by saying that the data wasn't important anyway.

That's the fourth or fifth time you've tried misrepresenting my posting like that. That's enough. The thread topic is posted, it's clear, give up on the trolling bs and address it.

[Delbert]

Read the other day (can't recall where) about human activity in the clean-up area. They said that if it's alpha radiation it's more or less okay because it doesn't penetrate air more than about 10cm. It did mention the dangers of getting the paticles on the skin, and I think also hinted at the undetectability should they be ingested. But if they're moving or disturbing such, particles or dust is bound to become airborne and thus ingested. Is one to presume that because of the next to impossibility of detecting the stuff should it be ingested, they can claim it's not particularly dangerous? Quite worrying if such blasé approach is the norm in such an industry.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Delbert

[overtone]

 

 

But if they're moving or disturbing such, particles or dust is bound to become airborne and thus ingested. Is one to presume that because of the next to impossibility of detecting the stuff should it be ingested, they can claim it's not particularly dangerous?

Because the bad stuff adheres to reasonably large particles - rather than moving around as, say, a gas - filtering and barrier clothing works fine. (A 10cm air travel path works out to a small fraction of an inch of the right clothing etc, so those suits they wear are good protection).

 

They don't claim safety if there's more than so much bad dust around - they require hazmat suits etc. They impose careful sanitation and sequestration routines. And they monitor the exposure.

 

These are all procedures imposed on them by people worried about that stuff, suggested by unfortunate consequences visited upon fellow nuke enthusiasts, arrived at over times of trial and error, of course.

[Delbert]

And they monitor the exposure.

Thanks for the info. But in view of its apparent inability to penetrate even tissue paper, how do they monitor alpha emitting particles?

[John Cuthber]

Read the other day (can't recall where) about human activity in the clean-up area. They said that if it's alpha radiation it's more or less okay because it doesn't penetrate air more than about 10cm. It did mention the dangers of getting the paticles on the skin, and I think also hinted at the undetectability should they be ingested. But if they're moving or disturbing such, particles or dust is bound to become airborne and thus ingested. Is one to presume that because of the next to impossibility of detecting the stuff should it be ingested, they can claim it's not particularly dangerous? Quite worrying if such blasé approach is the norm in such an industry.

The idea that you can't detect alpha emitters after they are ingested is flat out wrong. A case in point would be the late Mr Litvinenko. It's difficult, but that's largely irrelevant since the dust emits a variety of types of radiation so you can monitor it using beta or gammas .

also as

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

says,

"A Geiger–Müller counter, also called a Geiger counter, is a type of particle detector that measures ionizing radiation. It detects the emission of nuclear radiation — alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays "

 

Overtone.

You said "Works for me - I can see relevant info about the problems at Fukushima emerging from such a comparison. I have no way of making it myself, because the nuke people have hidden the relevant data about Ivy Mike"

 

Then you greet that information (which wasn't actually hidden- you just didn't look for it properly) , not with the spirit of scientific inquiry, but with this

"So?"

 

Make up your mind.

Edited October 3, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Delbert]

The idea that you can't detect alpha emitters after they are ingested is flat out wrong. A case in point would be the late Mr Litvinenko. It's difficult, but that's largely irrelevant since the dust emits a variety of types of radiation so you can monitor it using beta or gammas .

I think with Mr Litvinenko I recall it took quite a considerable amount of time. And what's more, did they do it by directly detecting radiated alpha particles? Was Polonium 210 in fact detected chemically?

 

And as for the bit about variety whereby it's mixed up with beta emitters, that wasn't my query. My query was about detecting, or the impossibility of detecting, alpha radiation.

[John Cuthber]

" And what's more, did they do it by directly detecting radiated alpha particles?"

Possibly- they may have used the gamma rays that polonium also emits (and which newspaper reports forget about)

"Was Polonium 210 in fact detected chemically?"

Almost certainly not. There was very little of it. It takes something like 20ng of 210 Po to kill someone. Even allowing for the fact that they used a lot more than the minimum lethal dose it's unlikely they used as much as a microgram.

Finding that dispersed among roughly 100Kg of tissue would be difficult (though not impossible) by chemical analysis.The alpha emission spectrum would have been characteristic enough to get an initial indication and the half life would have confirmed it.

 

 

Part of the reason it took a while was that nobody thought to check. The use of a relatively pure alpha emitter will have made it much more difficult to spot the radiation, but certainly not impossible. You need the right equipment.

.

Re " My query was about detecting, or the impossibility of detecting, alpha radiation. "

Did this

"A Geiger–Müller counter, also called a Geiger counter, is a type of particle detector that measures ionizing radiation. It detects the emission of nuclear radiation — alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays "

answer it?

[overtone]

Make up your mind.

I have - I've decided you know what you're up to, and will be reporting your trolling to moderation, to see if they can do something about it. A first for me - congratulations.

 

Meanwhile,

 

Thanks for the info. But in view of its apparent inability to penetrate even tissue paper, how do they monitor alpha emitting particles?

They monitor the site, mostly, with gear like this http://www.remm.nlm.gov/civilian.htm - scroll down for a dosimeter specialized to measure alpha particles. They wear suits in heavy bad dust areas.

 

I don't know whether they check the cleanup crew's breathing filters inside or bodies under the suits at Fukushima, in case of suit leaks or something, but it is possible.

Edited October 3, 2013 by overtone