Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2518

@ Peter Yes, I understand it is the same.
by Will 10/17/2011 5:23:22 PM

ok, this video is highly informable, even in german videos.www4.arte.tv incredible pictures !
by Edano 10/17/2011 5:29:45 PM

finally !!!!
by Edano 10/17/2011 5:37:03 PM

@Edano yup very good video I think maybe we have scope to use youtube and it is so easy to put video;s together does simply have a youtube account?
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 5:41:14 PM

@elainekirk you saw that ? they poured the uranium into the vessel by hand !!!
by Edano 10/17/2011 5:42:59 PM

@Will, thanks for the info on Japanese tea.
by Peter 10/17/2011 5:44:09 PM

@elainekirk nope we don't have a central account. Various members have them where they have been putting content
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 5:44:15 PM

@edano, hands-on involvement seems common practice in the criticality biz: en.wikipedia.org
by Peter 10/17/2011 5:47:19 PM

@Peter yes, but this was 1999...
by Edano 10/17/2011 5:48:00 PM

@Edano frightening
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 5:48:25 PM

jaif on tokaimira www.jaif.or.jp
by Edano 10/17/2011 5:49:16 PM

@Edano , I believe that quite a few processes in the manufacture of nuclear fuel and such are carried out manually, particularly when the processes are in a developmental stage. Don't ask why the techs were not shielded and worked without manipulators. Obviously nobody anticipated criticality as a possibility.
by Peter 10/17/2011 5:55:33 PM

@Peter derstandard.at
by Edano 10/17/2011 6:06:52 PM

I am still trying to figure out after the 1950's criticality accident why they don't use very specific measuring and mixing equipment. It almost seemed like a mentality that safety is for sissies?
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 6:23:12 PM

Edano, All and esp any with some medical background. I found what looks like the most important study to date on low-dose exposure that speaks to the much-touted 100 mSv / y (aka, 100 mG / y) being the threshold for safety. That's the dose Japanese authorities always cite with the claim that there's no cancer risk up to that dose. But this study which is the most comprehensive review of epidemiological studies on cancer and low-dose radiation seem to say otherwise. It's Free in full : oem.bmj.com
by Ian 10/17/2011 6:30:28 PM

This paragraph from said study is most important:
"Based on assessments of BEIR VII for lifetime cancer risks after acute exposures and on the results of the present analysis (equation 7), a number of about 14 (90% CI 6 to 31) or 24 (90% CI 9 to 49) excess solid cancer cases among 1000 males or females, respectively, is obtained for LDRMD gamma-ray
exposures with a dose of 100 mGy. It is further estimated that there would be about seven (90% CI 3 to 15) or 11 (90% CI 4 to 23) excess fatalities from solid cancer among males or females, respectively." oem.bmj.com
by Ian 10/17/2011 6:31:18 PM

Okay, that quote is just referring to the risk according to BEIR VII, which this study finds to be too low (ie, cancer risk appear to be greater based on current epidemiological research). See Figure 3 near the end to see the relative risk-per-dose values of the ICRP, BEIR VII and the findings of this meta-analysis of epidemiological research called Epi-risk. oem.bmj.com
by Ian 10/17/2011 6:37:48 PM

have you seen this link from audi-tek www.enn.com he posted it on org just wondering which plants are in the area
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 6:50:16 PM

@elainekirk There are a number in that region. Looking for a map of that fault to see if any are really close.
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 6:55:24 PM

The point in question is half way between Little Rock AR and Memphis TN. Does this mean this is part of New Madrid fault or could activate it in a quake?
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 6:57:36 PM

@lillymunster I try to keep up with audi but he caught me on the hop there so I grabbed it quick as it was zooming down the page I havent looked into it at all
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 6:58:07 PM

New Madrid - the lower left is Reelfoot Rift - what USGS is concerned about. It looks like it could set off the New Madrid fault. upload.wikimedia.org
by lillymunster via Upload.wikimedia.org 10/17/2011 6:59:49 PM

upload.wikimedia.org
by lillymunster via Upload.wikimedia.org 10/17/2011 7:00:10 PM

15 reactors on New Madrid www.sott.net

www.foxnews.com

Nobody seems to have a list
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 7:05:37 PM

@Ian with a medical background, but without proves, i can say the following: there is no threshold for "safe" radiation. it is simply stupidity to claim that. every body is different, and children (or small people, or weak people, or whatever) are surely more at risk than others. so there cannot be a general threshold. there can't either be an "individual" threshold, because it highly depends on the tissue that is affected by the radiation. what i learned at university, and i see no reason why this should not be true anymore, is that a single quantum of high energy radiation can lead to cancer. the higher the dose, the more likely it is. but there is no threshold. there is even no profound understanding of the "repair mechanisms", that are often claimed by the threshold fans. surely every organism has a different repairing ability depending on so many variables that it is impossible to predict. some patients with cancer live longer than expected, some shorter, and there are even patients that "seem to be resistant" to it. i can see no scientific reason for a threshold scenario, other than to calm down the public and negate radiation risks. to me, this is a very spooky discussion about nonsense. the only thing you can assume, is a linear dose-cancer relation without threshold, and every serious statistical study will prove that.
by Edano 10/17/2011 7:09:02 PM

@lillymunster oh goodness
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 7:12:23 PM

@Edano I agree plus there is the damage that isn't cancer the genetic damage and the auto immune damage and that damage cannot be fixed
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 7:13:34 PM

@Edano, sage commentary!
by Ian 10/17/2011 7:19:00 PM

Brain Cancer and Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
by Ian 10/17/2011 7:24:00 PM

Reappraisal of brain tumor risk among U.S. nuclear workers: a 10-year review.
by Ian 10/17/2011 7:25:49 PM

Shocking unpublished study, a Chernobyl-fallout-dose-response IQ drop for the in utero exposed irpa11.irpa.net The same authors have had prior research on this published : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
by Ian 10/17/2011 7:56:03 PM

Group says NYC doesn't need Indian Pt. could find enough replacement through efficiency and renewables at a cost of 1-$5 per customer per month. switchboard.nrdc.org
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 8:00:34 PM

will anyone listen though @lilly
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 9:07:49 PM

@elainekirk They need to put Indian Pt to a referendum.
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 9:16:22 PM

@lillymunster is that planned?
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 9:20:09 PM

@elainekirk not that I know of. Unsure if there is even a mechanism in NY to do so.
by lillymunster 10/17/2011 9:32:47 PM

@lillymunster ah right, have you found any news from tepco today there seems to be nothing
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 9:51:12 PM

Hi, everybody! I have been following this discussion since day 1 on the Reuters site. I just wanted to say "Thank you!" to each and every person who has contributed to the coversation, whether by modding or posting. It's been a pleasure reading the thoughts of so many thoughtful and intelligent people. You've helped me stay abreast of ongoing developments at Fukushima, and allowed me to retain my humanity at the same time. Bravo and well done.
by Andrea C. 10/17/2011 10:03:49 PM

@Andrea C. :) :)
by Edano 10/17/2011 10:06:27 PM

@Andrea C. hi
by elainekirk 10/17/2011 10:16:31 PM

Ahh, I keep hitting return!!
by Andrea C. 10/17/2011 10:45:14 PM

1. A NE is completely, totally obsessed with safety. That is the entire reason for their existence. Safety means NO escape of radioactive materials in any form or amount, and no exposure for any plant workers. Any breach of this standard is considered a total Fail
by Andrea C. 10/17/2011 10:45:17 PM

Ooops, hit the wrong key. Anyhow, for what it's worth, this is my idea of a real nuclear engineer:
by Andrea C. 10/17/2011 10:45:20 PM

I really don't have much to add to this discussion (I'm just a fan), but I hope I could indulge in a bit of personal reflection at this time.
It seems like in most other discussions online, people like to come across as the genuine article: a real nuclear engineer. Well, I have to laugh at this because, guess what? My uncle is a real nuclear engineer (somewhere in Europe). As a matter of fact, he was, until his recent retirement, one of the top nuclear engineers in the country (head of the atomic energy agency's simulator dept. among other responsibilities). Now, I'm not trying to brag about my uncle. It's actually pretty embarrassing, as he is several magnitudes more brainy than the next brainiest person in the family (which definitely isn't me). I am, putting it delicately, mathematically challenged. I know nuthin' about any branch of physics or engineering. I have had the opportunity to get to know my uncle (whom I cruelly nicknamed Mr. Meltdown in my callow youth)
by Andrea C. 10/17/2011 10:45:22 PM