**Radiation Fallout Update**

[Sloe Djinn]

Sounds like too little too late.

We need to be shutting these plants down.

More earthquakes will come. Another tsunami will hit.

We can not afford to have nuclear power anymore.

We have been reckless and lazy. It is all madness.

Why build a nuclear plant on a fault line? Lame, lame, lame.

We need to make some personal sacrifices and use less power.

Your heart is in the right place, but it's not as easy as just shutting all nuclear power plants down.

Try telling a nuclear power tech in another country that they need to give up a career in the only field that they are skilled in because of what happened in Japan, and that they are reckless and lazy by default because they are associated with nuclear power in general.

Imagine them telling their family and children that they quit their job and can't afford to pay for food, school, or the mortgage with the explanation that "We have been reckless and lazy. It is all madness."

There are good, honest, hardworking people who have invested their lives into this industry. Yes, that includes those in Japan who have had their lives ruined because of the accident, and I am not trying to minimize in any way the suffering caused by the disaster.

All I'm saying is that such actions on a global scale would affect more people than you may be aware of. Those people deserve a better argument towards changing their careers than "Look what happened in Japan! You need to shut this plant down in your country because there will inevitably be a natural disaster that will destroy it!"

Try to think more about ways in which such a transition can be done effectively while keeping people employed, and also realize that it cannot be done quickly.

The best illustration that I can come up with at the moment is the banning of roads. So many people have gotten into fatal car accidents, so let's ban roads at once! Roads are banned immediately. Economy comes to a standstill because 90% of people can't make it where they need to go when public transit (trains, subways) is clogged hopelessly beyond capacity. Justification? So many people have gotten into fatal car accidents! Problem solved? Yes, your conscience is at rest about car accidents because nobody else will die in them. Problem really solved? No, because with such a hasty fix the economy stopped before public transit could be expanded sufficiently and now a whole lot of people will be suffering in the meantime while we go further into debt and poverty (which may also result in hardship and death) while trying like crazy to expand the choked public transit system over the next decade or two.

Once again, your heart is in the right place, but realize that people still need to eat and to care for their families in the meantime. You can't draw conclusions about which course of action to take too hastily. Put more thought into thinking of how to increase green energy productivity and research.

I suppose this makes me a naysayer.

 

[myself]

Your heart is in the right place, but it's not as easy as just shutting all nuclear power plants down.

Put more thought into thinking of how to increase green energy productivity and research.

good and honest hard working people have been completely misled
we never needed to build the nuclear facilities in the first place...

we were deceived, we were taught wrong

it's up to us to choose how best to move forward

nuclear disaster is the worst devastation humans can muster
our madness is killing the earth life system

i know it's a hard pill to swallow...
like i say, we were taught wrong in the first place

humanity is on a destructive path
we are consuming entirely too much

energy consumption, waste, corruption...

it's all because of mismanaged resources

we need to face this reality

the nuclear industry should be relieved of duty
we can use our brains to come up with more efficient systems

gotta look at the big picture
i know it's a big problem.

these are the challenges we face.

i dont have all the answers... but i am willing to address the issues

we must start somewhere

who else is having this discussion?

why isn't this issue our government's top priority?

your gov't is not so swift to deal with these things...

we, the people
it's our job to hold our elected officials accountable

in good faith we have entrusted them to take care of things like this

clearly, we can no longer trust them to act in our best interest

 

[just me]

Oil has possibly caused more destruction/corruption than nuclear power. Emissions from all kinds of vehicles into the atmosphere have caused great harm.

Some world leaders want nuclear power for the weaponization lagniappe.

 

[Seraffa]

good and honest hard working people have been completely misled
we never needed to build the nuclear facilities in the first place...

we were deceived, we were taught wrong

it's up to us to choose how best to move forward

nuclear disaster is the worst devastation humans can muster
our madness is killing the earth life system

i know it's a hard pill to swallow...
like i say, we were taught wrong in the first place

humanity is on a destructive path
we are consuming entirely too much

energy consumption, waste, corruption...

it's all because of mismanaged resources

we need to face this reality

the nuclear industry should be relieved of duty
we can use our brains to come up with more efficient systems

gotta look at the big picture
i know it's a big problem.

these are the challenges we face.

i dont have all the answers... but i am willing to address the issues

we must start somewhere

who else is having this discussion?

why isn't this issue our government's top priority?

your gov't is not so swift to deal with these things...

we, the people
it's our job to hold our elected officials accountable

in good faith we have entrusted them to take care of things like this

clearly, we can no longer trust them to act in our best interest

-- as long as we have God acting in our lives, it's not going to become as horrific as it could get.
I just wanted to state, though - I think some of it has finally reached my area.....here in the valley, between our mountains. Why do I think this?

I happen to have had my thyroid test come back perfect this past week - a true healing has taken place over the past month. No more Graves Disease!!!!!

But yet today - the weather is very peculiar just like back to winter again, and, despite my vitamins, I have a strange, "wasting" feeling in my body no nutrients have abated. I think I've gotten a slight touch of fallout, seriously.

 

[Peppermint]

When I look at the big picture, I see that power is absolutely crucial for us.

We depend on it for nearly everything, from telecommunication and medicine to basic needs like water and food. It is not just an issue of greed and owners of fashionable gadgets, we need the energy to survive. Shutting down all of the nuclear power plants in the world is going to accomplish one thing; having a massive crippling effect.

It's not going to undo the existing environmental damage, nor is it going to prevent it necessarily. There is a heap of other pollutants to consider. The introduction of environmentally friendly energy sources is not going to fix the damage immediately either. It will require additional efforts.

There is never just one cause. Although "radiation" is something that apparently causes innate paranoia to stir in people. That reminds me of people who have fits over genetically modified food, never mind their crops tend to be lathered with all manner of actual poison.

The safety of nuclear energy and plants can and probably will be improved if we continue to use them. The fact that natural disasters and accidents otherwise happen is not reason enough to thrust ourselves back into stone age. Should we abolish all forms of chemical industry because of an unknown possibility that a natural disaster might hit? Thermal power plants too? Honestly, the danger exists everywhere. I'm in favor of technical improvement over just closing down everything.

 

[Peppermint]

Honestly, the danger exists everywhere.

Just to put some emphasis

http://www.cracked.com/article_19117_7-horrible-ways-universe-can-destroy-us-without-warning.html

 

[myself]

When I look at the big picture, I see that power is absolutely crucial for us.

We depend on it for nearly everything, from telecommunication and medicine to basic needs like water and food. It is not just an issue of greed and owners of fashionable gadgets, we need the energy to survive. Shutting down all of the nuclear power plants in the world is going to accomplish one thing; having a massive crippling effect.

It's not going to undo the existing environmental damage, nor is it going to prevent it necessarily. There is a heap of other pollutants to consider. The introduction of environmentally friendly energy sources is not going to fix the damage immediately either. It will require additional efforts.

There is never just one cause. Although "radiation" is something that apparently causes innate paranoia to stir in people. That reminds me of people who have fits over genetically modified food, never mind their crops tend to be lathered with all manner of actual poison.

The safety of nuclear energy and plants can and probably will be improved if we continue to use them. The fact that natural disasters and accidents otherwise happen is not reason enough to thrust ourselves back into stone age. Should we abolish all forms of chemical industry because of an unknown possibility that a natural disaster might hit? Thermal power plants too? Honestly, the danger exists everywhere. I'm in favor of technical improvement over just closing down everything.

Your train of thought takes your argument all over the place.

It would serve you well to slow down.

You are too eager to prove me wrong with your logic.

Let's find some common ground so that we can have a discussion instead of a fight.

I'm aware that the universe is full of possibilities.
Of course, we could be destroyed by a comet or massive solar flares...etc.
Do you really think this is a good reason to treat our planet like trash?

Personally, I'm sick of plastic water bottles and plastic bags. We could use cloth sacks and wineskins, or recycle glass bottles. This simple fix would serve us well immediately.

Our wasteful, foolish ways have put humans on the fast track to destruction.

We don't need nuclear facilities! Yet you seem so convinced of our dependence on nuclear energy.

I am challenging you to use your imagination.

Just stretch your brain a bit to visualize a society that functions efficiently.

What would it take to clean up our act?

Why shouldn't we expect something better for ourselves and our children?

Humanity needs to recognize its failures and adjust accordingly.

Just like big oil, this nuclear business is ridiculous.

My main concern is for all coastal facilities as will as those built near fault lines.

Fukushima is turning out to be the largest man-made disaster in history.

A large part of Japan is now uninhabitable.

All this, thanks to our 'demand' for excess energy.
This is the real price we pay for televisions and iPhones.

*

Radioactive isotopes. They exist.
You are stating that radiation causes paranoia.
You then say GMO's have pesticides sprayed on them.
???

Regarding your comment about genetically modified foods...
Have you researched this at all?
Show me how GMO's have been proven to be completely safe for animal consumption.

From my point of view, you are stumbling around in the dark, desperately trying to argue away the information I have presented.

Honestly, it seems as if you are in complete denial.

I would much rather appreciate a discussion rather than your attempts to debunk my logic.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I would much rather appreciate a discussion rather than your attempts to debunk my logic.

[MENTION=963]myself[/MENTION], Are you saying that you would prefer to speak only with people who agree with you? If this is the case, please do specify. This is very much the impression that I am getting.

For the record, I find fault in the conclusions that you have drawn and the actions that you propose to take, and I tried to explain my arguments as best I could, but it doesn't seem like what I have stated is worth your time to address.

You acknowledged that you don't have all the answers (nor do I) but that you're willing to address the issues (and presumably look for an appropriate course of action). However, in subsequent responses you seem to keep falling back into general lament at environmental disaster, and rather than continuing to look for answers, you fall right back onto your original proposal of getting rid of all things and people related to nuclear energy posthaste. In other words, you just completely reset.

Once again, if this thread is just for people who agree with you, please just say so...

 

[Peppermint]

Honestly, it seems as if you are in complete denial.

Oh the irony. This is coming from the person who can't grasp the practical consequences of his ideology, presents inaccurate data and thinks that iPods will be the ruin of us.
Do you realize just how many things need the energy the function? Do you realize how many vital institutions and people you'd cripple with your brilliant idea?

Let's find some common ground so that we can have a discussion instead of a fight.

Indeed, lets.

I agree that we need to take better care of the environment, but your suggestions show a dreadful lack of foresight into the practical consequence that would follow the closure of these plants.

I am not even pro-nuclear power, but it is a fact that the energy they provide is something we need. We cannot do away with this significant energy supplier BEFORE an alternative is ready to be implemented.

Further more, I actually have no idea why you are so hell bent against nuclear power in particular. If my observation is correct, and it turned out to be after my research, the radiation emitted from nuclear indistry is an incredibly miniscule amount compared to other sources of radiation. This isn't even taking into account the other truly worrying pollutants.

Sources of radiation

Radiation can arise from human activities or from natural sources. Most radiation exposure is from natural sources. These include: radioactivity in rocks and soil of the Earth's crust; radon, a radioactive gas given out by many volcanic rocks and uranium ore; and cosmic radiation. The human environment has always been radioactive and accounts for up to 85% of the annual human radiation dose.
Radiation arising from human activities typically accounts for up to 15% of the public's exposure every year. This radiation is no different from natural radiation except that it can be controlled. X-rays and other medical procedures account for most exposure from this quarter. Less than 1% of exposure is due to the fallout from past testing of nuclear weapons or the generation of electricity in nuclear, as well as coal and geothermal, power plants.


The maximum annual dose allowed for radiation workers is 20 mSv/yr, though in practice, doses are usually kept well below this level. In comparison, the average dose received by the public from nuclear power is 0.0002 mSv/yr, which is of the order of 10,000 times smaller than the total yearly dose received by the public from background radiation.

Make sure you pay good attention to this, because it effectively proves you wrong.

Radiation protection standards assume that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possible risk to human health. However, available scientific evidence does not indicate any cancer risk or immediate effects at doses below 100 mSv a year. At low levels of exposure, the body's natural repair mechanisms seem to be adequate to repair radiation damage to cells soon after.

In 1990, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near to 62 major nuclear facilities. The NCI study was the broadest of its kind ever conducted and supported similar studies conducted elsewhere in the USA as well as in Canada and Europe.


In the UK there are significantly elevated childhood leukaemia levels near Sellafield as well as elsewhere in the country. The reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear, but a major study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. However, studies are continuing in order to provide more conclusive answers.

This to me, indicates that well maintained nuclear industry is not the horrible risk for humans that you present here.

Source: World Nuclear Association - Nuclear radiation and health effects.



Lets tackle your other claims.

Fukushima is turning out to be the largest man-made disaster in history.

A large part of Japan is now uninhabitable.

False, false, and false.

Since you love comparing Fukishima with Chernobyl lets compare the two.

The report on Fukishima being elevated to level 7 on april 12th shows a lot of insight.

The only other accident ever put at this level was the explosion and sustained fire at Chernobyl 4 in April 1986. This, however, was made far worse in terms of health impact by the instantaneous nature of the release, the failure of authorities in the Soviet Union to evacuate nearby people and restrict the consumption of milk and finally by some people's refusal to take potassium iodide tablets due to mistrust of the government.

Ironic don't you think?

By comparison at Fukushima the situation developed over a number of days giving Japanese authorities ample time to evacuate residents living within 20 kilometres and warn those in a further ten kilometre radius to stay indoors. Milk, drinking water and many other foodstuffs have been routinely monitored and their consumption controlled. Potassium iodide tablets were distributed early and consumed at the right time.

Radioactive releases to sea are now also decreasing since Tokyo Electric Power Company identified and plugged the place from which highly contaminated water was leaking directly to sea. At the same time the company has released a larger amount of much less contaminated water to free space in a waste management facility on site to store the more contaminated water.

less damage, less causalities in comparison to the ACTUAL worst nuclear disaster to date. Your claims about Fukishima are outrageous hyperbole.

Large part of the Japan inhabitable? No, it's actually the area surrounding the plant that was significantly irradiated.

This map from the International Atomic Energy Agency shows Iiata
village as the only place to have received any notable disposition
of radionuclides

One concern for Japanese authorities is the higher disposition of radionuclides in the village of Iiate, about 30 kilometres northwest from Fukushima Daiichi and outside the evacuation zone. The reason for the higher rate of contamination in that localised area is not known, but monitoring has shown it to be the only area significantly affected by the accident.

So far, three workers have been killed by the immediate effects of the earthquake and tsunami and none by the effects of radiation. No measurable effect on the general public is expected.

Oh look, proven wrong again.

let me just add that despite the disaster that Chernobyl was the world is still turning around, mostly unaffected. And even after the devastation of the environment that happened ecosystems are flourishing at the site despite being irradiated, and there are organisms that actually thrive on radiation. Life happens in even the most inhospitable environment, from microoorganisms and worms that eat poisons to bacteria that actually converts the poisons to electricity, to the greatest irony of everything I've mentioned, Abiogenesis.


To return to the current state of Fukishima at the moment, here is what is currently taking place there.

Tepco's 17 April remediation plan



Cooling reactors
In units 1 & 3 the containment vessels will be flooded up to the level of the top of the fuel, and nitrogen injection will be continued. In unit 2 the damaged containment will be sealed with grout, before similarly flooding. New heat exchanger circuits will be built for all three units. Cold shutdown target in 6-9 months. The plan does not mention removal of fuel from the reactors.

Cooling and removing spent fuel
For all four units water injection will be improved and cooling circulation for heat removal restored, with new or restored heat exchangers. A support structure will be built under unit 4 pond. Fuel will then be removed to central storage on site.

Managing contaminated water
Further storage facilities will be installed, along with treatment plant to enable recycling. Reactor 2 is a particular focus. Slightly-contaminated water will be treated. "Full-fledged" treatment plant will follow.

Minimising release of radioactive materials to atmosphere
Dust-suppressing resin will continue to be applied, and debris removed to improve working conditions on site. A light temporary structure will then be built over reactor buildings 1, 3 & 4, followed by a more substantial structure.

Preparing for return of evacuees
Monitoring will be expanded and the evacuation zone will be decontaminated as required so that evacuees can return as soon as possible.

Consortia led by both Hitachi-GE and Toshiba have submitted proposals to Tepco for decommissioning units 1-4. This would generally involve removing the fuel and then sealing them for a decade or two while the activation products in the steel of the reactor pressure vessel decay. They can then be demolished. The Hitachi-GE group includes Bechtel and Exelon, the Toshiba team includes Babcock & Wilcox and Shaw. Areva is also planning to submit a proposal.

Source: World Nuclear Association - Fukishima accident 2011 report

Out of the above listed, the following actions have begun: on april 19th, Plans for Fukishima basement pumping, on april 20th, Radioactive dust control is stepping up

From my point of view, you are stumbling around in the dark, desperately trying to argue away the information I have presented.

My work here is done. I expect nothing short of distrust on the side of the OP, but I hope I've at least put some minds at ease with this information.

 

[Peppermint]

In addendum, here are the latest radiation measures in Japan from the International Atomic Energy Agency

On 19 April, deposition of I-131 was detected in 13 prefectures, ranging from 1.8 to 368 Bq/m2. Deposition of Cs-137 was detected in seven prefectures, the values reported ranging from 2.4 to 160 Bq/m2.

Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures. For Fukushima on 20 April a gamma dose rate of 1.9

 

[myself]

ok, peppermint.

I only urge you to re-evaluate the situation from a different perspective.

I have a difficult time trusting your judgement. Unfortunately, the source you have chosen to follow is quite biased. : /

I am not interested in engaging with you anymore. This fighting is a waste of our energy.

*

Collectively, we continue to suffer for lack of imagination and foresight.

Our time, energy, resources,
our ways of relating to each other,
our opportunity, our moment,
it is all being sabotaged by an element of laziness/greed/stupidity.

Fear, lies and self deception keep us in this destructive mode.

It is people who create hell on earth,
yet We may also choose to do the opposite!

Empathy/compassion/wisdom would not seek to poison the planet.

At this time, the old system is showing it's age. The system of power and control is operated by lunatics.

Hopefully these man-made disasters will help us transform our society into something a bit more friendly, more beautiful for us all.

Let's think and act cooperatively, not competitively. After all, our actions do affect each other, no matter where we are in the world.

[MENTION=3722]Seraffa[/MENTION] I'm happy for your healing!

How do you feel today?

Has anyone else felt any different lately?

Perhaps if we just exist in a state of love/peace, we will not be affected by the poison.

I don't know why the plants and animals flourish at Chernobyl...
Who is to say we cannot do the same?

If we have the peace that passes understanding, will we stand a chance to survive in an environment while others perish?

It certainly seems possible.
Maybe it's all in the posture we assume.

Interesting to think...
what is poisonous for one living thing is not necessarily bad for another...

 

[myself]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI"]YouTube - Busby: 'Can't seal Fukushima like Chernobyl - it all goes into sea'[/ame]

from the comments on this clip i found a website
http://immediatefuture.weebly.com/

haven't looked into it much yet, but it looks promising