Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 145

@borrrden It's per year, I saw the original article when they bumped the limit.
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:02:24 AM

@Ralph Unger TEPCO isn't the one that actually changed the limit, it was the Health Ministry.
by borrrden 3/28/2011 8:02:54 AM

Radiation above 250 millisieverts is said to cause health problems such as a temporary reduction in the number of white blood cells. lol it does not come up easy in a search anymore.
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:05:49 AM

Edano, speaking about reactor #2 (contaminated puddles): "Up to now, I believe that the operation has been able to prevent further aggravation of the situation, various efforts have been made to this situation, the situation has not deteriorated, and so the situation has not changed".
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:06:46 AM

At this point, 250 mSv is causing a reduction in my brain cells
by marie rich 3/28/2011 8:06:56 AM

@jojo Dang That's what I thought!! He never really answered . HA, what a joke.
by marie rich 3/28/2011 8:07:47 AM

@Ralph Unger Rule of thumb is 1 Sv = 5% fatality rate from eventual cancer (in terms of long term effect, apart from acute effect). So 250 mSv would be 1.25% fatality rate each exposure.
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:07:52 AM

@marie rich I swear he was going to say "Who's on First? I don't know. Third base."
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:08:27 AM

@Marie 8X that and you will have have no mind to lose.
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:08:31 AM

... and, related to the other ticker item on NHK that was posted below: "Japan's nuclear safety watchdog says radioactive elements from melted nuclear fuel have found their way from one of the reactors to a turbine building at the Fukushima Daiichi plant."

Experts, any conclusions from that? I thought the turbine buildings were up above the reactors, so presumably this stuff hasn't seeped downwards to get there?　　
by Paul (UK) 3/28/2011 8:09:12 AM

@Jojo Statistics on radiation are not linear. You can't extrapolate numbers in that way. That's very bad science.
by Pedro Jesus 3/28/2011 8:10:06 AM

@Paul (UK) the turbine building is next to the reactor building. It's the spent fuel pool thats on the upper floor
by marie rich 3/28/2011 8:10:34 AM

Pressure from the reactor vessel would push tainted water into the basement.
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:10:34 AM

@Pedro Jesus The EPA doesn't seem to think so. LNT.
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:11:41 AM

If there was a leak in the turbine lines and if they umped water into the reactor vessel.
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:12:13 AM

Which they have been doing for how many days?
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:12:50 AM

here's a good site for rad dose 'cuz it's a good explaination and simple chart users.rcn.com
by marie rich 3/28/2011 8:13:43 AM

If you take a look at the diagram at the bottom of page 11 of this document, you will see why it is hard to directly attribute low levels of radiation to cancer. I think the only way to confirm it would be to expose millions of people to it in a controlled environment. www.unscear.org
by borrrden 3/28/2011 8:14:01 AM

@Jojo What I mean is, when the EPA says that exposure to 1Sv (for how long, btw?) poses a 5% risk of developing lethal cancer, you can't go on doing maths calculations about the exposure to other levels of radiation. It doesn't work like that. It is not linear.
by Pedro Jesus 3/28/2011 8:15:01 AM

Chernobyl did that already and it was a huge link.
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:15:07 AM

@borrrden We already do expose millions of people to low level cancer. Radiation workers, xray techs, kids that get lots of xrays, international airline pilots. I can link to many EPA documents that show LNT is good science.
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:16:05 AM

@Jojo That is not a controlled environment though, did you happen to look at the diagram illustrating other factors that could play a role?
by borrrden 3/28/2011 8:16:55 AM

@Pedro Jesus all rates are based on 1 hour exposure. If you get 1Sv/hr you will have radiation sickness.
by marie rich 3/28/2011 8:17:27 AM

@Pedro Jesus It's just 1 Sv. So if you have 1 Sv/ hour, it's 5%. 2 hours, 10 %. etc. It absolutely is linear, it's called linear no threshold. THe exposure to radiation is calculated in Sieverts, and then applied even to low levels lineraly.
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:17:32 AM

@Jojo The lifestyles of those workers and people.
by borrrden 3/28/2011 8:18:41 AM

I've got to get some sleep. I'm fading, as we used to say. Goodnight, my friends.
by marie rich 3/28/2011 8:19:23 AM

@Jojo The part about the exposure I understand; the part about the statistics concerning it's effect on health doesn't make any sense.
by Pedro Jesus 3/28/2011 8:19:49 AM

Is there such a thing as a controlled environment? Not!
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:20:42 AM

@Pedro Jesus You can read about it on the EPA site here, I'm just reporting that. www.epa.gov
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:21:09 AM

As soon as ya look at it , it is kinda controlled Like Schroedinger's cat
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:23:02 AM

@borrrden Well, yes. They make common assumptions about a "man" and what their levels are. But that's what a Sievert attempts to do, standardizes a dose of radiation across all people. There are factors of the time, distance, type of isotope, and type of contact (inhalation, ingestions, soil, etc.). It's plugged in to get a Sievert, and then the fatality rate per Sievert is 5% with long-term cancer.
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:23:20 AM

@Jojo I was referring to other factors, like genetics, sex, age, any chemical exposures, smoker vs non-smoker, stuff like that.
by borrrden 3/28/2011 8:24:22 AM

Jojo I agree, I think 1 SV should be the standard of measurement. ,.0000001 SV should be a micro sievert.
by Ralph Unger 3/28/2011 8:26:32 AM

@borrrden I believe they take some of that into account when determining the "average" man. Their methodology in the EPA link I sent is a good 40 pages alone. It's just an average, so out of 1 million people exposed to exactly 1 Sievert, then chances are high it will be a 5% fatality. When you have 50 people, there is a certain confidence level (might be 0, might be 5).
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:27:50 AM

A new order from Japans health ministry: From now on it's forbidden to use rain water or water from rivers in water treatment plants. The pools at the plants must be covered with plastic sheets. www.n-tv.de (in german)
by Salvador 3/28/2011 8:33:51 AM

@Salvador How is that effective? What water is left if they can't use water from rain or rivers?
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:35:00 AM

@Jojo I don't mean to keep hounding this, but look at Appendix F of the EPA doc. None of the sample calculations use sieverts, all of them use becquerels and curies :-/.
by borrrden 3/28/2011 8:39:46 AM

english.kyodonews.jp The health ministry has instructed the operator of water purification plants nationwide to temporarily stop taking in rainwater to prevent contamination in tap water following radiation leaks from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, ministry officials said Sunday.

While calling on the plants to ensure stable supply of tap water, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare also proposed covering pools of the plants with tarps to keep out rainwater or to use powdered activated carbon that can help get rid of radioactive materials.. Yeah, that's real effective. Cover water treatment plants with tarps. Hello? How do they get new water from OUTSIDE THE TARPS?
by Jojo 3/28/2011 8:40:59 AM