Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 46

@hans, hydrogen cant be seen in air
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:11:57 PM

@jojo Doing what exactly?
by es 3/26/2011 9:12:19 PM

The N°32 measurment of MExT is still very high (46 microSv/h); so that more than 20 milliSv. No evacuate ?
by Olivier 3/26/2011 9:12:46 PM

have you all read this worrying article ? www.bloomberg.com it is really hard to stand.
by Matsuoko 3/26/2011 9:12:48 PM

The rover solar cells are 40% efficient - a typical commercial solar cell is currently 17%
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 9:13:44 PM

@es Nobody knows :) Actually, they have billions of dollars in research $ every year for reneables.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:14:29 PM

Big future in tidal power in many places. Water has much higher energy density than air and population desity is high along coasts, so little transmission loss. Plus, tides are 100% predictable, unlike stochastic resources like wind and even river flows.
by Alaskan 3/26/2011 9:14:45 PM

I think nucs should be phased out - replaced by solar panels
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 9:15:40 PM

@Alaskan We used to talk about the Bay of Fundy in class.
by Jim Carver 3/26/2011 9:16:01 PM

@Matsuoko Re that bloomberg lik - Yeah, I think they want us to be grateful that all that fresh fuel was in the SFP rather than in that dodgy reactor. My, aren't we lucky!
by es 3/26/2011 9:16:07 PM

@Matsuoko, yes i have seen that article before, the vessel should have been scrapped at once.
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:16:50 PM

@George -- solarvoltaic doesn't work so well here at 61 North in December. Less than 5.5 hours/day of daylight, sun only 4 degrees above horizon max.
by Alaskan 3/26/2011 9:16:56 PM

@you So for that spot in Namie Town (30 km NW of nuke plant), if you assume constant radiation of 1.4 mSv /hour, after 714 hours (about 30 days) you would have a full Sievert of exposure. That's 5% fatality rate (from eventual fatal cancer) right there. After 142 hours (6 days) you have a 1% fatality rate.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:17:38 PM

@WolfDK : just pure luck that it was completely empty .... unbelievable.
by Matsuoko 3/26/2011 9:17:47 PM

we are getting this-World's largest tidal energy scheme www.dailyrecord.co.uk
by elainekirk 3/26/2011 9:17:57 PM

@Jim, did oceanography grad school in Halifax NS & used to have a house of the BofF. Tides are high but so is sediment, which wreaks havoc on turbine blades. But new technologies are being explored in NS, Maine, OR, and up here in AK.
by Alaskan 3/26/2011 9:18:36 PM

@Alaskan thats true but just to maintain what we have in areas where nucs infest
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 9:18:53 PM

@George Yes, I get it. I've put my money where my mouth is, investing in a small mutual fund that only buys renewable stocks. But our governments need to subsidize research and development like they have for oil, gas and coal.
by Alaskan 3/26/2011 9:20:10 PM

@Matsuoko, think that was the cause it was empty, but yes you would not like to stress test a vessel like that in fueled and running condition.
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:20:19 PM

@you So even though you have a 1% fatality rate (higher for children) from eventual cancer from this radiation exposure in Namie Town EVERY 6 DAYS OF EXPOSURE, and the accident has been spewing for over 10 days... "Professor Masaharu Hoshi of Hiroshima University said the current levels do not affect human health.

But he added that he thinks the plant will continue to disperse radioactive substances into the air for some time and that he hopes people will carry on their daily life while paying sufficient attention to changing radiation levels." Yes, carry on with your daily life in Namie Town.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:20:23 PM

@Alaskan I can imagine. That's a tough one. Lose some efficiency cleaning it also.
by Jim Carver 3/26/2011 9:21:09 PM

@Jojo And that is just point radiation dosage, it does not include ingestion of particulates - eating, drinking, breathing.
by Bobby1 3/26/2011 9:22:52 PM

@Jojo, all radiation you receive will affect your health, there is no lower limit just calculated risks, same as everything else in life.
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:23:16 PM

@Alaskan : do you have nukes in Alaska?
by Matsuoko 3/26/2011 9:23:32 PM

@WolfDK Agreed, point is that they need to evacuate all these people.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:24:14 PM

@Jojo, indeed they do and should have a long time ago, there is no point in exposing people to unnecessary radiation.
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:25:41 PM

More from the BBC re the German public's discontent with all things nuclear: www.bbc.co.uk
by es 3/26/2011 9:26:07 PM

@es Good for them!! I wish all the world would do the same thing
by Meretisa 3/26/2011 9:27:17 PM

At that rate (it was 56 uSv/hour, the 1.4 mSv was cumulative), with 1 week of radiation, it's 1 in 2125 people contracting fatal cancer eventually from this exposure. The accident was on March 12(?), so it's been 14 days or so already (1 in 1000 or so). It's even worse for children. Figure 2 weeks of constant exposure, that's 1 in 379 girls < 15 getting fatal cancer, and 1 in 759 boys.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:30:48 PM

@es : i hope Germany will prove the world that renewables are possible. they don't have much sun and wind but they are willing to make it. in some 10 or 20 years they can export their knowledge on that. it's a good way.
by Matsuoko 3/26/2011 9:30:58 PM

@Meretisa, would you pay 20% more for your electricity to shut down a few nuclear powerplants ?
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:31:08 PM

@Matsuoko In Spain there are numerous German solar and wind farms - they are already exporting their technology to sunny places.
by es 3/26/2011 9:32:30 PM

@WolfDK : i am not willing to spend any money to clean up a nuclear disaster ! that is the point !
by Matsuoko 3/26/2011 9:32:32 PM

japan only needs to spent money on fukushima
by hans 3/26/2011 9:33:07 PM

I see white vapor/smoke and now some thin gray smoke on Tepco webcam, fyi.
by marie rich 3/26/2011 9:33:45 PM

@wolfdk I think nuclear is going to become more expensive , even if governments are slow to crack down on them the insurers will surely be upping the cost and I can see workers demanding better packages too
by elainekirk 3/26/2011 9:34:06 PM

@Jojo I think the total dosage is less than that because it didn't start all at once. The average dose has a positive slope curve though.
by Jim Carver 3/26/2011 9:34:07 PM

@es : ah, "es" means espanol, i got it.
by Matsuoko 3/26/2011 9:34:15 PM

@Jim Carver Possibly so, we don't have data. The assumption I made is constant radiation to get the idea.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:34:48 PM

@Matsuoko [grin]
by es 3/26/2011 9:35:03 PM

@WolfDK How much are each Japanese citizen going to pay for "clean" Fukushima? Factor those costs in as well.
by Jojo 3/26/2011 9:35:42 PM

I saw a comment on another blog wondering if we figure out the cradle to grave cost on a nuclear power plant, how many homes could we outfit with solar panels and hook up to the grid for the same cost. Of course, what incentive would the electric companies have to go along? They'd end up buying their electricity from us. What a turnaround.
by radioguy 3/26/2011 9:35:56 PM

One of the questions I am wondering is, given the amount of radiation that seems to be leaking, along with the number of days that this has been going on, is the accumulation of mS of radiation still localized, or are areas further away going to start developing higher levels as well? Is there a drop-off point where accumulation isn't a problem or does it just spread? (I hope that question makes sense. What I'm really getting at is, assuming there are no further complications and the radiation just leaks at the rate it is, should I be worried about my grandmother who lives just a little farther from Fukushima than Tokyo is?)
by kayko 3/26/2011 9:36:07 PM

VERY INTERESTING. high cäsium levels in europe. translatee.com
by hans edited by George Gibb 3/26/2011 9:36:40 PM

@Jojo, my point was that there is a cost to EVERY single consumer, even thou your country (like mine) don't have any nuclear power plants, electricity gets imported and exported over borders.
by WolfDK 3/26/2011 9:37:46 PM