@Jim so if it is contained somehow it irradiates the food w/o contaminating it?
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:54:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:54:22 AM" ) ) Tuesday, March 29 2011 7:54 PM
@Bobby1 What is the European organization that monitors testing / arms limitations? they will have up to date estimated total 137Cs output. Be prepared to be shocked though as you will probably find the total output to date to be approaching Chernobyl's output at the same 3 weeks.
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 1:54:10 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:54:10 AM" ) )7:54 PM yesterday
@Meretisa Earlier today I was working on a "back-of-the-envelope" estimate of cesium deposition for the US. The forecast is, in 72 hours, the total dry deposition of Cs-137 is 2% that of Tokyo. Green vegetables grown in Tokyo we found contaminated a few days ago. So I came up with 30-45 days till milk, green vegetables in California contaminated. So many unknown variables though.
by Bobby1 at 3/30/2011 1:53:11 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:53:11 AM" ) )7:53 PM yesterday
@Nancy Only nuetrons make something radioactive.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:53:11 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:53:11 AM" ) )7:53 PM yesterday
@KT39 It's in ur smoke detector too.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:52:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:52:14 AM" ) )7:52 PM yesterday
So how do they use cesium 137 to irradiate food w/o it making the food radioactive?
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:51:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:51:48 AM" ) )7:51 PM yesterday
@Nancy: I know, believe me. I traded for a couple of years. It's a very corrupt scene and the little guy will take the hit, for sure.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:51:30 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:51:30 AM" ) )7:51 PM yesterday
@KT39 yeah... I know. :P to "clean" it, right?
by Meretisa at 3/30/2011 1:51:26 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:51:26 AM" ) )7:51 PM yesterday
@ Meretisa Just some trivia - did you know they use Cesium 137 to irradiate food!
by KT39 at 3/30/2011 1:50:45 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:50:45 AM" ) )7:50 PM yesterday
@ marie rich No, I'm sorry, I don't. His comments were interesting, weren't they?
by KT39 at 3/30/2011 1:50:13 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:50:13 AM" ) )7:50 PM yesterday
@Bobby1- so... let's work with what we DO know- the cesium levels elsewhere in the world- and extrapolate from there. thoughts?
by Meretisa at 3/30/2011 1:49:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:49:41 AM" ) )7:49 PM yesterday
@Karen, no way of knowing the exact situation with that info but if you have retirement plans and life insurance it is a worry. I know lots of people who had their savings toasted here when the market tanked. I sure hope they were shorts!
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:49:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:49:14 AM" ) )7:49 PM yesterday
@Nancy: Nothing to say that they weren't short, i.e., puts.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:48:02 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:48:02 AM" ) )7:48 PM yesterday
@Meretisa No idea - I can't even find a reliable estimate of becquerels of cesium emitted daily.
by Bobby1 at 3/30/2011 1:47:54 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:47:54 AM" ) )7:47 PM yesterday
@Jojo I guess so.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:47:52 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:47:52 AM" ) )7:47 PM yesterday
@Nancy, as much as I can see sure does. I wonder how they picked those spots. Why were the other three clustered on a line?
by Peter Melzer at 3/30/2011 1:47:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:47:50 AM" ) )7:47 PM yesterday
*ditto*
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:47:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:47:40 AM" ) )7:47 PM yesterday
@Karen Warren dittp
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:47:24 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:47:24 AM" ) )7:47 PM yesterday
@Nancy: Thanks for that info. Splashing... hmmm!
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:47:06 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:47:06 AM" ) )7:47 PM yesterday
@Pedro Jesus I think you are 100% wrong. LNT means NO THRESHOLD, meaning...there is no threshold. Notice how they didn't call it LLT as in linear LOW threshold. They say NO THRESHOLD. I think we're at an impasse here. You seem to think when they say linear no threshold they really wink wink mean some kind of threshold. I take it to mean no threshold. I think we've made our points. :)
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:46:58 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:46:58 AM" ) )7:46 PM yesterday
@KT39 do you know hoe to upload that leak diagram on this site or the wikipedia site? it's very interesting
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:46:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:46:40 AM" ) )7:46 PM yesterday
@Elaine, the sad thing is many of those big investors would heavily carry things like retirement plans and individuals life insurance policies so people could be double hit in this.
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:46:20 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:46:20 AM" ) )7:46 PM yesterday
@All- hello again. back. wow. can we try focusing on how to clean up this mess? where are we at as far as the accident goes and what are the clean-up options? what is the probable range for their exclusion zone? what about the PEOPLE?? what are the probabilities for illness and death- are we at LD-50 or what? At what range?
by Meretisa at 3/30/2011 1:46:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:46:17 AM" ) )7:46 PM yesterday
@Peter: I get it. You are talking to a SC advocate for many years over. I was thrilled to read that someone was thinking ahead.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:46:00 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:46:00 AM" ) )7:46 PM yesterday
@Scilla That story makes me wonder what options people have to make money to survive.
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:45:56 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:45:56 AM" ) )7:45 PM yesterday
The shareholder chart came from Wall Street Journal This could cost an arm and a leg !. Article in Wall Street Journal on this link online.wsj.com
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 1:45:27 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:45:27 AM" ) )7:45 PM yesterday
@Jojo You could put in those terms. It's like mechanical physics. It works fine for most applications but under a certain threshold the results become highly unpredictable. Statistical models can become highly unreliable under certain circumstances. The more variables you have the less accurate they are. And biology in general has millions of variables. Don't be surprised if you try to apply that EPA model on Chinese population and you will find out that it doesn't work at all.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:45:21 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:45:21 AM" ) )7:45 PM yesterday
@Karen Warren, the do this preemptively, so the people's own cells can used for transplanting if needed.
by Peter Melzer at 3/30/2011 1:44:58 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:44:58 AM" ) )7:44 PM yesterday
@Jim, I know everything is chaos. But this far out you would think they could get some better supplies into the workers.
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:44:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:44:29 AM" ) )7:44 PM yesterday
by FradyKat at 3/30/2011 1:43:58 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:43:58 AM" ) )7:43 PM yesterday
@Peter, do they still mesh with the trejectories of the blast from #3? They based them all off 1 but if you scoot over to #3 they still line up with the blast objects.
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:43:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:43:09 AM" ) )7:43 PM yesterday
@Mary That is a strange thing.. one person might get sick and die from say 4 sieverts and the guy beside him might live 90 years.
by Miles at 3/30/2011 1:42:24 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:42:24 AM" ) )7:42 PM yesterday
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 1:42:05 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:42:05 AM" ) )7:42 PM yesterday
@Nancy Yeah, it's ok though. I just don't have any words for how they're treating their workers.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:41:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:41:35 AM" ) )7:41 PM yesterday
@Pedro Jesus So a no threshold theory....with a minimum threshold? Is that what you're saying?
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:40:44 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:40:44 AM" ) )7:40 PM yesterday
@Nancy, ah, I figured out where the hot spots with the reactor plu are supposed to be located. One is the one in the field, the other is the one in the solid waste storage facility. In addition From the map you kindly provided I saw a way to distinguish the reactor buildings. #1 is a bit smaller than the others and built closer to the sea. Lower buildings fill in the gap between #1 and #2, whereas #3 and #4 look almost identical with no buildings between the blocks. The readings for the sites are listed here: www.tepco.co.jp
by Peter Melzer at 3/30/2011 1:40:19 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:40:19 AM" ) )7:40 PM yesterday
by Scilla edited by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:40:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:40:14 AM" ) )7:40 PM yesterday
Will Japan face a mental health crisis? www.cnn.com
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:39:57 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:39:57 AM" ) )7:39 PM yesterday
Another mishap at the plant. Not sure if this was already posted:
"The latest mishap came Tuesday, when three workers trying to connect a pump outside the Unit 3 reactor were splashed by radioactive water that gushed from a pipe. Though they were wearing suits meant to be waterproof and protect against high levels of radiation, nuclear safety official Hidehiko Nishiyama said the men were soaked to their underwear with the contaminated water." www.google.com
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:39:56 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:39:56 AM" ) )7:39 PM yesterday
fairewinds.com
Recap of Arnie Gunderson's comments from above link (to the best of my ability and apologies for any errors):
---Plutonium is difficult to detect because it doesn't give off a gamma ray -- gives off alpha particle
---One micro-gram of plutonium can cause lethal cancer
---Believes plutonium is coming from fuel pool in Unit 4 because it's scattered on the land on site and mostly likely way to volatilize P is by fire or violent...reaction
---All 4 units will have plutonium because Uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium
---Believes plutonium will be found in more than 5 areas outside
---Trenches outside of nuclear containment have enormous amounts of radioactive water
---Radioactivity in water is over 100 REM per hour (stand near it for 3 or 4 hours and you receive a lethal dose of radiation)
---Thinks this radioactive water is leaking into the ocean
---Core damage still minimized by TEPCO
---Three Mile Island reactor without water for 10-12 hours and ran for only 3 months before accident so very little decay heat;
---However, Fukushima reactor ran for 4 years and had enormous amount of decayed heat and was uncooled for many days. More decayed heat plus very little cooling means damage inside core 70-80%
which means radioactive slag at very least damaging seals...at worst gradually eating its way thru and meltdown possible
---saltwater + hot water = corrosion of vessels likely
---Large quantities are going to continue to leak in and out of containment and doesn't see how they're going to be stopped in the short term
by KT39 at 3/30/2011 1:39:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:39:50 AM" ) )7:39 PM yesterday
It's a no-threshold model, meaning you can use it to make estimates in any range of exposure. But then they explain where the model estimates become unreliable. So, you can use the same model but some of the data is unreliable.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:39:02 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:39:02 AM" ) )7:39 PM yesterday
Monkeys trash car in UK safari park, lol. Thanks, I need that.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:38:02 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:38:02 AM" ) )7:38 PM yesterday
It is important to shield radiation victims from public view. The Hibakusha have suffered a lifetime of discrimination just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
by Miles at 3/30/2011 1:37:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:37:59 AM" ) )7:37 PM yesterday
lol sorry copy paste fail
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:37:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:37:29 AM" ) )7:37 PM yesterday
Page 248
Japan Earthquake
"Betrayed" Japanese communities might never go home www.reuters.com
by NHK Listener edited by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:37:01 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:37:01 AM" ) )7:37 PM
@Apollo: Thanks for that info.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:36:55 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:36:55 AM" ) )7:36 PM
@Apollo Thank You :)
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 1:36:16 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:36:16 AM" ) )7:36 PM
I have been scanning Japanese news sources & I can find no mention of the burned workers' identities, nor are there any photos of them. The workers were able to walk into the hospital for treatment, however they were shielded from view by blue tarps. The Japanese public would would consider this an appropriate way to protect the injured workers privacy & would also shield their families from unwelcome gossip or journalistic scrutiny. The caption heading of the photo is "Beta Rad. Burns", the text mentions that 2 workers have been injured.
by Apollo at 3/30/2011 1:35:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:35:29 AM" ) )7:35 PM
@Pedro Jesus When they say linear NO THRESHOLD, are you saying they mean there is a threshold? Explain the lingo please.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:35:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:35:09 AM" ) )7:35 PM
@George Gibb It's about time.
by Bobby1 at 3/30/2011 1:34:47 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:34:47 AM" ) )7:34 PM
@Jojo That is not what they are saying, but take it as you want it. I tried to clarify that scientific lingo for you.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:34:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:34:29 AM" ) )7:34 PM
@Matsuoko The guardian article cited below has a photo showing the hill dropping off between the blue crane and the reactor buildings, as discussed at 1:09 AM...
by John at 3/30/2011 1:33:47 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:33:47 AM" ) )7:33 PM
@Pat: I posted about stem cells earlier. Don't understand Gale's logic (unless he isn't an advocate). You store (freeze) the cells just like some folks have been doing with a newborn's umbilical cord.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:33:42 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:33:42 AM" ) )7:33 PM
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:33:36 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:33:36 AM" ) )7:33 PM
OT: BP executives may face jail for manslaughter over Gulf disaster
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:33:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:33:29 AM" ) )7:33 PM
Yes, stock footage is very common. Still waiting to hear any new status reports (hopefully more informative than the one katz suffered through a few hours ago)
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 1:33:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:33:03 AM" ) )7:33 PM
@Pedro Jesus That's fine, but I'll believe the EPA when they say there is no minimum threshold for adverse radiation effects.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:32:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:32:46 AM" ) )7:32 PM
@Karen Warren just accommodating the vast majority of our community with PRESBYOPIA :)
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 1:32:32 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:32:32 AM" ) )7:32 PM
#Pat - nifty. One of the few good proactive ideas I have seen.
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:32:18 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:32:18 AM" ) )7:32 PM
@Pedro Jesus Yeah, maybe it's just in the cards.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:31:31 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:31:31 AM" ) )7:31 PM
Nifty? or not? www.guardian.co.uk Frozen blood stem cells could save workers' lives if they become ill after exposure to high levels of radiation BUT But Robert Peter Gale, a US medical researcher advising the Japanese government, said the move might cause more problems than it solves. "It would be nifty if you could do it, but you are dealing with 800 workers and you might need these cells for only a small percentage of them."
Another downside is that workers who have had their bone marrow cells stored might become cavalier and take unnecessary risks, Gale said. "These cells can reconstitute bone marrow function; that is not the only target of high dose radiation, they would have damage elsewhere, to their lungs, gastrointenstinal tract and their skin. I, and a number of colleagues, feel it's not an appropriate thing to do."
by Pat at 3/30/2011 1:31:19 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:31:19 AM" ) )7:31 PM
I posted this earlier but some may have missed it... November 2010 powerpoint presentation from the Tokyo Electric Company detailing how fuel storage works at the huge complex. www.nirs.org
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:31:13 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:31:13 AM" ) )7:31 PM
@Pedro Jesus Right, they are talking about low-doses (risk to the general public) as opposed to acute ones from workers.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:30:25 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:30:25 AM" ) )7:30 PM
@Jim Carver Indeed, we are so concerned about cancer and other illnesses in the modern world but we have no idea of what it really means in a million years evolutionary context. And we will probably never know, since we have been tampering with it and will continue doing so.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:30:11 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:30:11 AM" ) )7:30 PM
@George Gibbs. Good info and illustrations. Thanks for posting.
by Scilla at 3/30/2011 1:30:06 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:30:06 AM" ) )7:30 PM
@Tenzing: I can hear you shouting, lol.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:29:52 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:29:52 AM" ) )7:29 PM
So a photographer or news editor "cheated" and selected a nice photo out of the archives to illustrate the concept that someone was injured. They were fairly careful not to show the person's face or enough flesh for easy identification of the body part. I suppose this is a fairly common practice...illustration rather than documentation. yes?
by Sky at 3/30/2011 1:29:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:29:46 AM" ) )7:29 PM
ARM FINAL ANSWER: FOR PERSPECTIVE CONSIDER THIS SCALE THE SIZE OF THE GLOVED HAND HOLDING THE DEVICE MEASURING RADIOACTIVITY. Thank You
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 1:29:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:29:17 AM" ) )7:29 PM
@Markfm, folks whichever limb it is (i also weigh in for a beefy arm), the injury is quite different from that of the workers two days ago. If those two guys had had feet like this, they could not have walked out of the hospital. So the exposure dose must have been locally greater.
by Peter Melzer at 3/30/2011 1:28:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:28:23 AM" ) )7:28 PM
Long held theory was that radiation leads to mutations and about 1% of those lead to an evolutionary change (adaptation). A new theory suggests that this is not the case and the driving force behind mutations are viruses (viri).
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:27:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:27:59 AM" ) )7:27 PM
l
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:27:25 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:27:25 AM" ) )7:27 PM
The original image I saw when things first happened had the reactors numbered 1-6 in successive order when actually 1 is north and next to 5 & 6. I had it backwards this morning.
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:27:15 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:27:15 AM" ) )7:27 PM
So, I count 359 posts about arm and leg. This is not so interesting as the discussions on low radiation exposure and their potential long-term effects.
by Miles at 3/30/2011 1:26:28 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:26:28 AM" ) )7:26 PM
@Jojo Of course they do. They don't have a better model. That's all. Besides, if you read the title of the document it says: "EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and
Projections for the U.S. Population".
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:26:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:26:23 AM" ) )7:26 PM
I added an updated new image of the reactors and the trejectory of the large items that blew out of #3. That is in Misc. I also added a screenshot of the blast that has the three large debris chunks marked. Both are in the wiki fukushimafaq.wikispaces.com
by Nancy at 3/30/2011 1:26:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:26:22 AM" ) )7:26 PM
@Jojo With lower doses, there is a weaker effect, and when you have a weaker effect, you need more samples to distinguish it. Here there were insufficient samples, and thus insufficient statistical power.
by Bobby1 at 3/30/2011 1:26:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:26:12 AM" ) )7:26 PM
@Matsouko: Did I read that you are a doctor? What specialty? Just curious. btw. I agree that this is going no where and don't mind the change of subject at all. @Pedro: I'm sorry, but I walked into the 'room' and saw the discussion....
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:26:04 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:26:04 AM" ) )7:26 PM
@Pedro Jesus Again, I'm not a scientist, I'm just going by what the EPA says.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:25:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:25:40 AM" ) )7:25 PM
Compresses, not compasses.
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 1:23:55 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:23:55 AM" ) )7:23 PM
@Pedro Jesus when more data comes, the crew will be busy on more important things
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:23:34 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:23:34 AM" ) )7:23 PM
When I look at it I think it is right leg, shot with a telephoto which compasses depth of field. The angle of the joint, compared to the head, does not work for an elbow, unless he has a severely dislocated shoulder. Also, the bulge in the flesh, covered by writing, looks like a calf. Then again, I am dumb as a sack of rocks.
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 1:23:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:23:12 AM" ) )7:23 PM
@Pedro Jesus this is a function of not having info. to chew on
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:22:25 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:22:25 AM" ) )7:22 PM
@Pedro Jesus If you read the entire page, you will see that they are talking about the problems analyzing an ACUTE dose below .1 Gy from a statistical standpoint. NOT that it doesn't have an effect, just tough to quantify/measure these risk. The issue was in comparing the risks of an INSTANTANEOUS dose of .1 Gy to a chronic dose of 1 mGy /y. And in the paragraph below they outline that they are sticking by LNT, even for LOW DOSES.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:22:18 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:22:18 AM" ) )7:22 PM
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:21:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:21:59 AM" ) )7:21 PM
@Karen Warren I will say plausible.. But I still think it is unlikely
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:21:58 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:21:58 AM" ) )7:21 PM
@Karen Warren Maybe he fell on the water. I'm getting a bit tired of this already. Shouldn't we stick to facts rather then theories?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:21:44 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:21:44 AM" ) )7:21 PM
The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to a concrete floor, experts say, raising fears of a major release of radiation at the site.
The warning follows an analysis by a leading US expert of radiation levels at the plant. Readings from reactor two at the site have been made public by the Japanese authorities and Tepco, the utility that operates it.
by leela at 3/30/2011 1:21:34 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:21:34 AM" ) )7:21 PM
@Karen Warren : the elbow is not in the picture.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:21:33 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:21:33 AM" ) )7:21 PM
sorry, didn't post info on Guardian.uk link below.
by leela at 3/30/2011 1:21:24 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:21:24 AM" ) )7:21 PM
Page 247
Allright... let's call it an arm. Are we now saying that it isn't plausible that the worker sustained exposure to his arm?
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:20:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:20:41 AM" ) )7:20 PM
@Miles lulz
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:20:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:20:39 AM" ) )7:20 PM
@NHK Listener I didn't want to go that far. LOL
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:20:30 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:20:30 AM" ) )7:20 PM
@Pedro Jesus The question they had was in relation to chronic low dose exposure from acute ones. They are talking about being the INSTANTANEOUS effects of .1 Gy, not long-term.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:19:57 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:19:57 AM" ) )7:19 PM
@Jojo No point in going on with this. If you don't understand the following quotation in that context, I can't really explain you. "there is inadequate statistical power to quantify risk below about 0.1
Gy. This is about 100 times the annual whole-body, low-LET dose to an average
individual from natural background"
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:19:20 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:19:20 AM" ) )7:19 PM
radiation and LNT
We have been deceived into believing that all radiation is bad because of policy reliance on the “linear no-threshold” theory, or LNT, which states that if large amounts of something cause death or sickness, fractional amounts of the same thing cause proportional amounts of death or sickness. If the LNT were applied to falling as it is to radiation, we might note that 100 percent of those falling onto concrete from 100 feet are killed, but only 50 percent of those falling from 50 feet die. With these data we would linearly extrapolate to say that 10 percent falling from 10 feet and one percent of those falling from one foot would die. Armed with this “linear no-threshold falling theory,” we could confidently assert that jumping rope should be banned on all school playgrounds since statistically anyone making 100 one-foot jumps would die. bravenewclimate.com
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:19:18 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:19:18 AM" ) )7:19 PM
That is a left lower bicep. hahah I hope I'm looking at the right picture since I just logged on.
by Miles at 3/30/2011 1:19:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:19:03 AM" ) )7:19 PM
That's fine. We need to be careful, for sure. If you follow down from where you believe the head is located, go to the shoulder... now follow down some more and what happened to the elbow?
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:18:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:18:46 AM" ) )7:18 PM
@Karen Warren Looks like left arm
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:17:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:17:39 AM" ) )7:17 PM
@Karen Warren : but karen, you can see the head and an eye. it is an arm, believe me.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:17:28 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:17:28 AM" ) )7:17 PM
The EPA doc brings up the objections to LNT, but ultimately they reject each objection. On p.18 they state: "Conclusion. EPA accepts the recommendations in the BEIR VII and
ICRP Reports to the effect that there is strong scientific support for LNT and that
there is no plausible alternative at this point. However, research on low dose
effects continues and the issue of low dose extrapolation remains unsettled."
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:17:16 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:17:16 AM" ) )7:17 PM
@openmind last I heard they don't think it's necessary.. Minister Edano just said so on NHK press conf. a few min ago
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:16:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:50 AM" ) )7:16 PM
@Karen Warren The burn is on a bicep, I believe, since you can see the victim's face in the top left corner.
by Reed at 3/30/2011 1:16:47 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:47 AM" ) )7:16 PM
Just noticed this from the Guardian.uk.......
by leela at 3/30/2011 1:16:43 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:43 AM" ) )7:16 PM
@Jojo Didn't you read my quotation from that same paragraph?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:16:42 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:42 AM" ) )7:16 PM
Link to Guardian.uk article:
by leela at 3/30/2011 1:16:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:41 AM" ) )7:16 PM
by leela at 3/30/2011 1:16:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:40 AM" ) )7:16 PM
likely leg than arm.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:16:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:23 AM" ) )7:16 PM
@Karen Warren Fine, but the media have been spouting some fairly wild inaccuracies of late, and we're being careful to check our sources.
by es at 3/30/2011 1:16:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:14 AM" ) )7:16 PM
@Pedro Jesus Where does it says it "breaks down"? The whole concept of LNT is "No Threshold".
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:16:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:16:07 AM" ) )7:16 PM
The problem that I am having with the 'arm' theory is that there is no elbow joint. Since, the workers were standing in water, logic tells me that it is more leg than arm.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:15:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:15:29 AM" ) )7:15 PM
So they still have only evacuated out to 12.4 miles from the plant?
by openmind at 3/30/2011 1:15:28 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:15:28 AM" ) )7:15 PM
@NHK Listener last number on thjat was 95,000+ people! It's in one of the nisa reports
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:14:51 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:14:51 AM" ) )7:14 PM
It says right here EPA believes in LNT because of scientific data: "epidemiological studies of cancer induction in cohorts receiving fractionated
or chronic exposures have so far been broadly consistent with LNT predictions.
The BEIR VII Committee unequivocally recommended continuing adherence to
the LNT approach. EPA also finds strong scientific support for LNT,"
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:14:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:14:48 AM" ) )7:14 PM
@Jojo They don't claim that. You are misinterpreting what they say in their website. They say the model they use to make their estimates is linear. Then they state that under a certain threshold the reliability of that model breaks down, so to speak.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:14:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:14:46 AM" ) )7:14 PM
@Karen Warren It very well could be.. They do check everyone for radiation in the exclusion zone.. Everyone leaving gets checked,
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:13:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:13:41 AM" ) )7:13 PM
Karen, all I have seen here is people saying it is not someone tending to a radiation burn on a leg
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 1:13:16 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:13:16 AM" ) )7:13 PM
@Pedro Jesus Quite the opposite, they say that the data IS reliable for low doses, which is why they are sticking with LNT. But the relevance of these findings to human carcinogenesis remains unclear,
and epidemiological studies of cancer induction in cohorts receiving fractionated
or chronic exposures have so far been broadly consistent with LNT predictions.
The BEIR VII Committee unequivocally recommended continuing adherence to
the LNT approach. EPA also finds strong scientific support for LNT, while
acknowledging that new research might conceivably force a revision to this
approach in the future.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:13:08 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:13:08 AM" ) )7:13 PM
@Matsuoko And wherever nuclear experiments have been conducted throughout last century.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:12:53 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:12:53 AM" ) )7:12 PM
@openmind mandatory to 20k = 12.4mi., stay inside zone 30k= 18.6mi
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:12:38 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:12:38 AM" ) )7:12 PM
I don't claim to know if radiation exposure is linear or not, even for small doses. What I am claiming is that the EPA is claiming that it IS linear, meaning even small doses will have a proportional effect. www.epa.gov
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:12:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:12:09 AM" ) )7:12 PM
@Jojo Sure, but they specifically state that data is unreliable under a certain threshold and that that threshold is about 100 times above radiation background. I was just trying to clarify that THERE IS a threshold under which data is either unreliable or there is no scientific evidence of harmful biological effects.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:12:04 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:12:04 AM" ) )7:12 PM
@ES: My memory is not that good so I can't attest to the audio portion of the news feed.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:11:38 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:11:38 AM" ) )7:11 PM
@Matsuoko Oh that's great, we nedd you.:)
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:11:24 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:11:24 AM" ) )7:11 PM
@Pedro Jesus : yes in traces because uranium decays. but not worlwide. i stated that below. only traces in uranium mines.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:11:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:11:23 AM" ) )7:11 PM
@Pedro Jesus That's not exactly what he said.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:10:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:10:29 AM" ) )7:10 PM
I have good memory and also a have a background in healthcare (spent many an hour in ER, OR and special procedures). I agree the surgical drape is a little confusing. It was on NHK shortly after the incident happened. If we were on Reuters, I might have tried to post it (that I can't remember). Let me ask a question... Why are you folks so convinced that it's not a plant worker?
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:10:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:10:22 AM" ) )7:10 PM
@Matsuoko This EPA report was created in 2008. www.epa.gov
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:10:13 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:10:13 AM" ) )7:10 PM
@Jim Carver : i am MD
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:10:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:10:12 AM" ) )7:10 PM
@Bobby1 - good to hear
by openmind at 3/30/2011 1:09:55 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:09:55 AM" ) )7:09 PM
@Matsuoko Plutonium is artificial? "Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element, by virtue of its most stable isotope, plutonium-244, whose half-life of about 80 million years is just long enough for the element to be found in trace quantities in nature."
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:09:43 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:09:43 AM" ) )7:09 PM
@Pedro Jesus And if you would see the next paragraph.... "But the relevance of these findings to human carcinogenesis remains unclear,
and epidemiological studies of cancer induction in cohorts receiving fractionated
or chronic exposures have so far been broadly consistent with LNT predictions.
The BEIR VII Committee unequivocally recommended continuing adherence to
the LNT approach. EPA also finds strong scientific support for LNT, while
acknowledging that new research might conceivably force a revision to this
approach in the future."
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:09:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:09:39 AM" ) )7:09 PM
@Matsuoko That has my vote. i don't think it's linear.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:09:18 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:09:18 AM" ) )7:09 PM
Fukushima winds www.jma.go.jp Looks like a seabreeze not going too far inland. This evening (Japan time) there will be light northeast winds.
by Bobby1 at 3/30/2011 1:09:05 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:09:05 AM" ) )7:09 PM
I still Like all of you, But no hugs
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:08:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:08:48 AM" ) )7:08 PM
Page 246
@Gordon Well sure. Like in the US these are fractions of 1 Bq that are found, nothing like the 2,000,000 Bq found in Fukushima spinach. But the problem is that there seems to be no middle ground: people are either scare-mongers or claim that radiation has no effect.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:08:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:08:46 AM" ) )7:08 PM
@marie rich - so how far have they evacuated, in miles?
by openmind at 3/30/2011 1:08:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:08:14 AM" ) )7:08 PM
@Jojo @sims : LNT is old opinion. today they speak of non-stochastic effects. no linearity at all.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:07:25 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:07:25 AM" ) )7:07 PM
@Jojo I do agree with what you have just written. I guess it is the un scientific scaremongering re tiny doses that annoys me, there said it! lol
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 1:06:58 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:06:58 AM" ) )7:06 PM
@openmind Yeah, and the northwest is already the most contaminated. sad
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 1:06:49 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:06:49 AM" ) )7:06 PM
@Jojo I think this will rap up the subject about EPA's data reliability. I'm quoting the link you provided. "The most contentious issue in radiation risk assessment is the
extrapolation of risk estimates derived from relatively high acute exposures in
case of the LSS cohort to low dose, or chronic exposure situations, which are of
greatest interest to EPA. Many subjects in the LSS cohort did receive very low
doses, but there is inadequate statistical power to quantify risk below about 0.1
Gy. This is about 100 times the annual whole-body, low-LET dose to an average
individual from natural background." Their words, not mine. =)
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 1:06:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:06:39 AM" ) )7:06 PM
@Jim Carver - looks like it's blowing towards the west a little
by openmind at 3/30/2011 1:05:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:05:17 AM" ) )7:05 PM
@Karen Warren We're not doubting you. News agencies raid photo libraries to illustrate their articles. Did NHK specifically and explicitly say that this particular photo was of a recently injured plant worker?
by es at 3/30/2011 1:05:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:05:17 AM" ) )7:05 PM
wanted to add, that plutonium is NOT a natural element, there is no "background radiation" from Pu. this is BS. Pu is artificially produced in atomic plants. there is natural uranium in some mines all over the world, and in there you might find very small amounts of Pu, but you cannot talk of a worlwilde background radiation of Ur and Pu. most of the worldwide background radiation is from the silly nuclear testings.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 1:04:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:04:03 AM" ) )7:04 PM
@sims They are not equivocating now, they are just leaving it open for the future. Right NOW, they believe in LNT. But the relevance of these findings to human carcinogenesis remains unclear,
and epidemiological studies of cancer induction in cohorts receiving fractionated
or chronic exposures have so far been broadly consistent with LNT predictions.
The BEIR VII Committee unequivocally recommended continuing adherence to
the LNT approach. EPA also finds strong scientific support for LNT, while
acknowledging that new research might conceivably force a revision to this
approach in the future.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:03:11 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:03:11 AM" ) )7:03 PM
@Karen Warren correction I don't think it is one of the 2 injured irradiated plant workers.
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:02:45 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:02:45 AM" ) )7:02 PM
@openmind Still seeing white "smoke" where it was this morning.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 1:02:33 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:02:33 AM" ) )7:02 PM
@Gordon You're right, countries are completely different. The problem with Chernobyl or even Fukushima is: how much dose did someone get? From radiation maps we can see 5 km could mean the different between 150 mSv and 1 mSv!. And were they outside, inside, tape water vs bottled water, etc. And these % (EPA says 1 Sv = 5% chance of fatal cancer at some point) are just AVERAGES. Meaning if you have 10 people, maybe 0 will get cancer, maybe 2. But of 1 MILLION people exposed to 1 Sv, chances approach 5%.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 1:02:08 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:02:08 AM" ) )7:02 PM
That burn is upon a bicep...note the victim's face in the top left corner.
by Reed at 3/30/2011 1:02:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:02:03 AM" ) )7:02 PM
@Karen Warren I believe where you found it.. I don't believe it is a plant worker
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:01:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:01:59 AM" ) )7:01 PM
@NHK: I know because I was the one who provided the link. I went back and found it.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:01:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:01:29 AM" ) )7:01 PM
Edano on NHK live.
by gabe at 3/30/2011 1:01:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:01:22 AM" ) )7:01 PM
by openmind via Pointscope01.jp at 3/30/2011 1:01:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:01:14 AM" ) )7:01 PM
If you need edit rights tightened, ask nancy
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 1:01:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:01:12 AM" ) )7:01 PM
@Jojo: what they are saying is.. there are some studies that have results indicating LNT (which are older) and some studies that indicate other things..
by sims at 3/30/2011 1:01:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:01:12 AM" ) )7:01 PM
@Karen Warren This is the same footage from the youtube video posted yesterday
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 1:00:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:00:48 AM" ) )7:00 PM
Like I said before... it was on NHK directly after the incident. I followed the source to EuroNews and found it on YouTube. If you folks don't believe me... I don't know what else to say. Are you folks now saying that NHK is putting out erroneous info or that you don't believe me? I really would like to know the answer.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 1:00:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:00:41 AM" ) )7:00 PM
@Markfm Thanks Mark
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 1:00:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 1:00:23 AM" ) )7:00 PM
@sims Nope. "EPA also finds strong scientific support for LNT,"
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:59:54 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:59:54 AM" ) )6:59 PM
@Jojo Well that certainly clears it up!?
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:59:30 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:59:30 AM" ) )6:59 PM
Pretty quiet in japan.
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 12:59:27 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:59:27 AM" ) )6:59 PM
@Matsuoko: consider the source of the information you are basing your statement upon.
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:59:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:59:23 AM" ) )6:59 PM
@Jojo Very good point! Yes even 1 minute speck of Pu can kill a person but another will not be bothered by it, perhaps Pu is a poor choice though as it is so deadly. Take iodine 131 for arguments sake, many many people will not be bothered buy even moderate doses but there are always the few that will develop a cancer related to iodine 131(thyroid / leukemia). the problem is - would they have developed the cancer anyway? And even the methods of determining if they would have developed the cancer or not are in dispute as is the statistical analysis of the number of thyroid cases in the areas contaminated by Chernobyl. To be quite frank whilst radiation contamination is never a good thing there are those who talk it up to be worse than it is. For example towards the end of the Chernobyl evacuations and re settlements the criteria for evacuation was lowered probable lifetime dose of 70mSv!!! Who here would even entertain the huge social and economic cost of relocating tens of thousands because of a probable lifetime 70mSv???
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 12:59:15 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:59:15 AM" ) )6:59 PM
@Pedro Jesus But they can see that if person x living in the same city as person y, exposed to the same background radiation but getting this 1 extra chest xray gets z % more cancer.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:59:10 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:59:10 AM" ) )6:59 PM
@Jojo translation 'we don't know, but want to be cautious'
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:58:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:58:59 AM" ) )6:58 PM
I onl saw that footage on you tube.
by Sin at 3/30/2011 12:58:25 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:58:25 AM" ) )6:58 PM
www.epa.gov However, experimental studies have uncovered novel
low-dose phenomena, raising doubts about the reliability of the LNT model. In
view of these findings, some have contended that very low doses of IR may be
much less harmful than estimated based on LNT, and may even be beneficial.
But the relevance of these findings to human carcinogenesis remains unclear,
and epidemiological studies of cancer induction in cohorts receiving fractionated
or chronic exposures have so far been broadly consistent with LNT predictions.
The BEIR VII Committee unequivocally recommended continuing adherence to
the LNT approach. EPA also finds strong scientific support for LNT, while
acknowledging that new research might conceivably force a revision to this
approach in the future.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:58:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:58:07 AM" ) )6:58 PM
If it's not a plant worker, why did NHK have it on its webpage? I have not reason to make this stuff up.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 12:57:51 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:57:51 AM" ) )6:57 PM
@Tenzing : but the workers burnt their feet, not their arms. it can only be archive material.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:57:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:57:40 AM" ) )6:57 PM
I only read english.. :-)
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:57:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:57:35 AM" ) )6:57 PM
@Jojo But they can never ascertain if people with live longer if they were not exposed to background radiation, so they cannot scientifically state that there is no threshold.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:57:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:57:22 AM" ) )6:57 PM
fukushima faq.wikispaces.com is the main page, I added news and links and miscellaneous pages. It is freely accessible/modifiable.
by Markfm edited by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:57:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:57:17 AM" ) )6:57 PM
@if there is someone here that reads japanes that can translate the words on the picture?
by Sin at 3/30/2011 12:56:47 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:56:47 AM" ) )6:56 PM
@Jojo afaik, no study has ever conclusively proven a statistically significant adverse effect of radiation significantly below <100 mSv (***ulative dose)..
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:56:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:56:14 AM" ) )6:56 PM
@Pedro Jesus Because they have data for various groups with slightly different amounts of radiation, all low levels, and given the volume of data/fatality rates they can plot the effects.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:56:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:56:12 AM" ) )6:56 PM
Anyway, if you could provide the link as I don't even know what the acronym stand for. I'd like to check that out.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:56:05 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:56:05 AM" ) )6:56 PM
@NHK Listener I agree. Its an arm and not a plant worker.
by Sin at 3/30/2011 12:55:52 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:55:52 AM" ) )6:55 PM
@all It's a numbers game. Only thing you can say is that 99% of mutations are bad.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:55:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:55:50 AM" ) )6:55 PM
@Matsuoko: I don't agree that its archived footage, I agree its an arm. Why would they show archive footage of a severe burn when they don't want to panic people?
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:55:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:55:41 AM" ) )6:55 PM
Page 245
@Jojo Oh, so according to them we die because of background radiation, not because we all die at some point in our lives. How can they be sure? Have they ever tested people who are not exposed to background radiation?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:55:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:55:09 AM" ) )6:55 PM
@sims They say that although there are some questions about low-levels, they still stand by having no threshold based on the data.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:55:00 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:55:00 AM" ) )6:55 PM
the fact that there is no threshold is one theory, as are many others, but experimental data is not available to conclusively prove which one is correct
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:54:37 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:54:37 AM" ) )6:54 PM
@Jojo the EPA is being cautious because it is not really known what the effects of low-level radiation are
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:54:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:54:03 AM" ) )6:54 PM
@Jojo Well, send me the link for the EPA site so I can confirm that for myself. That sounds really absurd. Also, if they defend that there is no limit of exposure for workers under a nuclear emergency they are not complying to international laws.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:53:57 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:53:57 AM" ) )6:53 PM
@Tenzing : you say brachium, i say arm, so that's the same. what's your problem ?
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:53:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:53:46 AM" ) )6:53 PM
If it's an arm, it pretty beefy especially for an Asian.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 12:53:43 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:53:43 AM" ) )6:53 PM
@Pedro Jesus And again, the EPA states that a certain % of humans die because of background radiation every year.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:53:25 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:53:25 AM" ) )6:53 PM
@Markfm Ok, post the link and i'll change it
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:53:10 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:53:10 AM" ) )6:53 PM
NHK Live Edano talking about the latest.
by Sin at 3/30/2011 12:53:06 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:53:06 AM" ) )6:53 PM
@Jim Carver Well said!
by d_news at 3/30/2011 12:52:49 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:52:49 AM" ) )6:52 PM
@Matsuoko I don't agree
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:52:30 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:52:30 AM" ) )6:52 PM
@Pedro Jesus According to the EPA, you are not correct. They say that there is NO THRESHOLD for radiation. They call it "linear no threshold", meaning if there is a 1% chance of fatality with x radiation, then you will have 1/million chance of a fatality of 1/millionth of that dose.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:52:28 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:52:28 AM" ) )6:52 PM
@Matsuoko: I was the one that posted the video. It was on NHK right after the incident so I followed the source to EuroNews on UTube.
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 12:51:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:51:39 AM" ) )6:51 PM
@Jojo That is not quite correct. Life in this planet has always sustained certain levels of radiation ever since the dawn of biological life. We are designed to withstand radiation. There has always been plutonium and uranium background radiation in the world. We are also bombarded with neutrinos, gamma radiation, UV's... of course there is a certain threshold below which radiation is not harmful. Even our body radiates energy in various forms.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:51:08 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:51:08 AM" ) )6:51 PM
Maybe scrub the news sticky, add a pointer to fukushimafaq wiki?
by Markfm at 3/30/2011 12:51:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:51:07 AM" ) )6:51 PM
I think it's very arrogant of our primitive society to think we have the right to contaminant the planet for our descendants. If we were really advanced, we wouldn't need this process to produce electricity anyway.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:50:52 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:50:52 AM" ) )6:50 PM
@Matsuoko its the left brachium follow it to the persons head, you'll see eyes
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:50:42 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:50:42 AM" ) )6:50 PM
@Tenzing : it is the arm and lot the leg, so it is not a fukudhima worker. archive material.,
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:50:06 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:50:06 AM" ) )6:50 PM
@Tenzing exactly what I was just wondering.
by joanna at 3/30/2011 12:49:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:49:59 AM" ) )6:49 PM
@Tenzing yw sorry it took so long
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:49:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:49:50 AM" ) )6:49 PM
@sim However, it is also a byproduct of fission, which is why they're testing for the Isotopes of it. From wikipedi, in reference to the isotopes decaying into hydries and oxides: Plutonium is a reactive metal. In moist air or moist argon, the metal oxidizes rapidly, producing a mixture of oxides and hydrides.[4] If the metal is exposed long enough to a limited amount of water vapor, a powdery surface coating of PuO2 is formed.[4] Also formed is plutonium hydride but an excess of water vapor forms only PuO2.[31]
With this coating, the metal is pyrophoric, meaning it can ignite spontaneously, so plutonium metal is usually handled in an inert, dry atmosphere of nitrogen or argon. Oxygen retards the effects of moisture and acts as a passivating agent.
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 12:49:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:49:39 AM" ) )6:49 PM
French nuclear waste storage pool experts to help. Good news. english.kyodonews.jp
by Scillak at 3/30/2011 12:49:36 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:49:36 AM" ) )6:49 PM
@Geroge Gibb: Thank you :)
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:48:18 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:48:18 AM" ) )6:48 PM
How does standing in the contaminated water burn ones arm?
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:47:54 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:47:54 AM" ) )6:47 PM
@elise I don't think this is comparable to Chernobyl. But if Nuclear is going to be used this cannot continue to happen that is for sure.
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:47:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:47:22 AM" ) )6:47 PM
the image of the injured worker is from video released on 3/24/11
by Tenzing at 3/30/2011 12:47:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:47:03 AM" ) )6:47 PM
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:46:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:46:03 AM" ) )6:46 PM
@jojo Well Said!!
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 12:45:59 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:45:59 AM" ) )6:45 PM
@Scillak Thanks, brain freeze after so many days...worked on new avatar tomodachi for Operation Tomodachi
by Pat at 3/30/2011 12:45:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:45:50 AM" ) )6:45 PM
What I'd like to see dispelled the notion that "well the radiation is the same as x so don't worry about it". According to the EPA, people DIE every year from background radiation and xrays. Pilots get increased cancer from international flights. So let's disabuse the notion that "this radiation is OK", because again according to the EPA, there is NO minimum threshold where radiation becomes "safe". It's just a matter of %.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:44:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:44:40 AM" ) )6:44 PM
@NHK Listener: my first real concern was that the 'feed and bleed' would result in more hydrogen explosions bringing radiation over toward tokyo and i am so releived that this did not come to pass..now i am just afraid for the area of fukushima, especially the water table being contaminated. it is a small island, with a minimum of arable land and not a place where people move around and just pick up ammove to some new exhurb every 5-7 years with the company they work for. the town of chernobyl had been founded around 1200 and was a center of hasidism...so, how many places do we have to make uninhabitable ~ how sustainable is it to continue to add to all this radioactivity we've done already?
by elise at 3/30/2011 12:44:28 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:44:28 AM" ) )6:44 PM
@Pat. I almost posted your same post - I keep confusing milli and micro because milli sounds smaller to me. I have to check wiki over and over!
by Scillak at 3/30/2011 12:44:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:44:23 AM" ) )6:44 PM
I read that the US experts state that the pu levels are not harmful and all is good in the nuclear world. Know that you guys and gals have been hashing around all day... I had to get back to work :-( ... so can anyone tell me the lastest. TIA
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 12:44:18 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:44:18 AM" ) )6:44 PM
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:43:32 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:43:32 AM" ) )6:43 PM
@sims wow
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:43:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:43:17 AM" ) )6:43 PM
oh and just to put the plutonium contamination in perspective.. there are estimates that about half a tonne of plutonium has been dumped in the irish sea over the years..
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:42:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:42:09 AM" ) )6:42 PM
@gordon I use Chrome I live and breathe google and I am not tech minded what are scripts???
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 12:41:58 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:58 AM" ) )6:41 PM
@Scillak OK that makes sense, thanks.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:41:54 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:54 AM" ) )6:41 PM
@Gordon : from the 50s - 60s nuclear tests you find pu everywhere in the world. so not to say that it is not volatile and does not spread far is BS either.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:41:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:48 AM" ) )6:41 PM
@marie rich Yeah I checked out that paper on oxidation of Pu and U. Very technical didn't apply much to what we're discussing but one sample they were testing was 10.2 grams. Wow, that can easily kill a million people. Actually prob more, I'm just being conservative.
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:41:40 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:40 AM" ) )6:41 PM
by Karen Warren at 3/30/2011 12:41:31 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:31 AM" ) )6:41 PM
Apart from the isolated cases, I would bet lots of $ that workers are being exposed to more than 250 mSv. Even the EPA says there should be NO limit when a meltdown is on the line and workers KNOW ABOUT and AGREE to the risks. It's just a liability thing for the press to state that workers are being sent home when they hit 250, but honestly I highly doubt TEPCO is monitoring these doses that closely.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:41:21 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:21 AM" ) )6:41 PM
@Pat and JoJo. Here's the article. The author wasn't working inside the plant. www.abc.net.au
by Scillak at 3/30/2011 12:41:01 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:41:01 AM" ) )6:41 PM
@stormy #3 has mox
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 12:39:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:39:35 AM" ) )6:39 PM
Page 244
@Pat No, the limit is 250 mSv, which is not even close to 883 uSv. He's at 0.883 mSv. Do you have the link?
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:39:26 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:39:26 AM" ) )6:39 PM
@ All...The water that drenched the 3 workers today was from R3...Is that the reactor that contains MOX or was that R1?
by Stormy at 3/30/2011 12:38:36 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:38:36 AM" ) )6:38 PM
@George Gibb Looks like they're using yellow garden houses!
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 12:38:32 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:38:32 AM" ) )6:38 PM
@marie rich - as can many things ... that's the reason why it's only in fuel rods as plutonium oxide (i.e. already combusted)
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:38:12 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:38:12 AM" ) )6:38 PM
@Jojo Well I assumed that it meant he couldn't go back to work in the industry. Over the legal limit.
by Pat at 3/30/2011 12:38:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:38:07 AM" ) )6:38 PM
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:37:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:37:48 AM" ) )6:37 PM
@Jim Carver Yes it is very bad and yes compared to other isotopes of various elements we are confronted with here it is "relatively" hard to disperse.
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 12:37:44 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:37:44 AM" ) )6:37 PM
@Jim Carver did you read that it can spontaneously combust?
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 12:37:31 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:37:31 AM" ) )6:37 PM
@Matsuoko Thank you!
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:37:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:37:09 AM" ) )6:37 PM
by George Gibb at 3/30/2011 12:37:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:37:07 AM" ) )6:37 PM
@Jim Carver : nanograms ! of Pu are dangerous !
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:36:43 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:36:43 AM" ) )6:36 PM
@Pat 883 uSv is nothing compared to the radiation they are facing. It's about 120 uSv /hour at the gates of Fukushima. Why would he bring up 883 if it's uSv?
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:36:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:36:07 AM" ) )6:36 PM
@sims Yeah gotta believe that, but I've been doing some reading about oxides of Pu and it's not that difficult to disperse., esp. considering that only micrograms are dangerous. Yeah and if somebody else says again that it's not that bad...well bs
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:35:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:35:35 AM" ) )6:35 PM
@marie rich okay just checking, i was gone for a while.
by dtinla at 3/30/2011 12:35:16 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:35:16 AM" ) )6:35 PM
@Jojo 883 microsieverts I made a mistake sorry
by Pat at 3/30/2011 12:34:41 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:34:41 AM" ) )6:34 PM
@dtinla sorry i was away. yes,thank you.
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 12:34:38 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:34:38 AM" ) )6:34 PM
@elainekirk - Do you have scripts enabled in your browser? (firefox I'm guessing?)
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 12:34:09 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:34:09 AM" ) )6:34 PM
The radiation 35 km from Fukushima is 70 uSv/ HOUR in some spots, and it's been like that for 8-10 days. It's not news if it's 884 uSv, it is if it's 884 mSv.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:33:34 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:33:34 AM" ) )6:33 PM
@elainekirk : i don't have an upload option :(
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:32:45 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:32:45 AM" ) )6:32 PM
@Jim Carver Oh that is because it is only difficult to disperse, not impossible, worldwide Pu is from atmospheric nuclear testing taking the Pu very very high up where it was caught by high speed winds.
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 12:32:24 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:32:24 AM" ) )6:32 PM
@Scillak You would get exposed to 884 uSv (micro) 35 km from Fukushima in about 8 hours. It has to be mSv.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:32:05 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:32:05 AM" ) )6:32 PM
@Jim Carver: overground nuclear explosions are very good at dispersing things
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:31:07 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:31:07 AM" ) )6:31 PM
@Salvador Not injured? So it's OK if the TEPCO CEO talks a bath in it? TEPCO is the Baghdad Bob of the energy industry.
by Jojo at 3/30/2011 12:31:03 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:31:03 AM" ) )6:31 PM
Oh I am so awful sorry MICRO,,,!!!!!
by Pat at 3/30/2011 12:30:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:30:29 AM" ) )6:30 PM
@cousinbuzz : you should be right. probably there is a smaller brown building in the front.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:30:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:30:22 AM" ) )6:30 PM
@Pat. I think it was 884 micro sieverts, not milli. I keep getting confused.
by Scillak at 3/30/2011 12:29:38 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:29:38 AM" ) )6:29 PM
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:29:37 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:29:37 AM" ) )6:29 PM
@elainekirk : that webcam button ?
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:29:22 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:29:22 AM" ) )6:29 PM
Okay, on the one hand they say that Pu is difficult to disperse widely, yet on the other hand they say that it's found all over the world due to nuclear testing. So, uh, how to beat oneself out of paper sack?
by Jim Carver at 3/30/2011 12:29:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:29:14 AM" ) )6:29 PM
@matsuoko there is an upload option just below the comment entry box ?
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 12:26:15 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:26:15 AM" ) )6:26 PM
there 's one worker/safety spokesman that leaked the stories about the workers food and conditions. HE said he got exposed to 884 mSv over 5 days. Assuming that was read off his monitoring badge hasn't he recived a lifetime maximum for employee? That's why he complained-he had nothing to lose, lost his job?
by Pat at 3/30/2011 12:25:34 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:25:34 AM" ) )6:25 PM
@marie rich did u ever find the temps on the reactor pressure vessels head and nozzles for March 29, 2011?
by dtinla at 3/30/2011 12:24:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:24:14 AM" ) )6:24 PM
Dear Elaine: Actually you're looking at two different elevations/levels. The short building, the cars, the concrete truck are on the rampart, they are not adjacent to unit 3 building. It's an optical illusion. The hill drops down to the roadway running along the landward side of units 1-4. minnesota.publicradio.org
by cousinbuzz at 3/30/2011 12:22:53 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:22:53 AM" ) )6:22 PM
@Matsuoko No, I meant the comments on his interview, not the information we've been providing from reliable sources. He actually corroborates most of what can be seen in official reports from Japanese officials.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:20:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:20:35 AM" ) )6:20 PM
Things to do - Daiichi NPP
(This is for group participation- opinions welcome)
1. Reactor2 - find and fix leak (torus or a pipe leaking)
2. Reactor1 - keep it cool using fresh water
3. SFP3 - lift transport crane out of there (room for water)
4. SFP4 - get a circulating pump working (and temp. gauge)
5. Clean up raciation in turbine bldgs and trenches.
by FradyKat at 3/30/2011 12:20:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:20:23 AM" ) )6:20 PM
@Salvador. You're welcome for the article but sad it even had to be posted.
by Stormy at 3/30/2011 12:19:04 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:19:04 AM" ) )6:19 PM
;)
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:18:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:18:48 AM" ) )6:18 PM
@Pedro Jesus : ah, then he is wrong !
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:18:39 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:18:39 AM" ) )6:18 PM
@dean - Thank you for your opinion. I'm heading back out to Tokyo on the 5th of April, and want to learn as much as possible beforehand. Hope things improve somewhat by then.
by Duncan at 3/30/2011 12:18:31 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:18:31 AM" ) )6:18 PM
@Matsuoko I brought up Pripyat because everyone want to compare this to Chernobyl.
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:18:13 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:18:13 AM" ) )6:18 PM
Last I remember, this water had about 1 Sievert/h. Nothing you want in your freaking PANTS!
by Salvador at 3/30/2011 12:17:53 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:17:53 AM" ) )6:17 PM
I will brb..
by dean at 3/30/2011 12:16:52 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:16:52 AM" ) )6:16 PM
duncan, I still believe if they can keep necessary cooling, the bulk of the whole thing is contained in the boundaries of the buildings.. and there may be some soils in long run for some distance around the area I'm not thinking of 12 miles.. maybe... .if conditions change or there are futher explosions then .. airbourne activity could spread to a larger area..
by dean at 3/30/2011 12:16:48 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:16:48 AM" ) )6:16 PM
@Stormy Thanks, that was actually a NEWS link: "The most recent misstep involved three workers at Fukushima getting drenched with radioactive water despite wearing supposedly waterproof suits.
The three workers were trying to connect a pump outside the Unit 3 reactor Tuesday and were splashed by radioactive water that gushed from a pipe. Though they wore suits meant to be waterproof and protect against high levels of radiation, nuclear safety official Hidehiko Nishiyama said the men were soaked to their underwear with the contaminated water.
They quickly washed it off and were not injured, officials said." www.cbsnews.com
by Salvador at 3/30/2011 12:16:42 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:16:42 AM" ) )6:16 PM
@elainekirk : how do you get your own photos in here ?
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:16:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:16:17 AM" ) )6:16 PM
Page 243
@elainekirk : thks, that i mean
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:15:23 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:15:23 AM" ) )6:15 PM
@Matsuoko best I could do , hope it helps
by elainekirk at 3/30/2011 12:14:56 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:14:56 AM" ) )6:14 PM
The interview with the Spanish expert is very enlightening. I'm not sure the translation to English is that reliable though. I'm reading the original in Spanish and he's saying something different than some of the comments that have been posted here.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:14:47 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:14:47 AM" ) )6:14 PM
@NHK Listener : we do not speak things like that out loud.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:14:46 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:14:46 AM" ) )6:14 PM
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:14:19 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:14:19 AM" ) )6:14 PM
So will the area around the plant become like Pripyat
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:14:00 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:14:00 AM" ) )6:14 PM
Japan: 3 workers "drenched" in radioactive water: www.cbsnews.com
by Stormy at 3/30/2011 12:13:36 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:13:36 AM" ) )6:13 PM
@jay77 Or slag
by NHK Listener at 3/30/2011 12:11:50 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:11:50 AM" ) )6:11 PM
@Gordon Thanks.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:11:10 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:11:10 AM" ) )6:11 PM
@jay77 yes.. molten gobs of fuel + whatever else
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:10:44 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:10:44 AM" ) )6:10 PM
Funny I've been thinking of "corium" as some kind of new metal element, but its really just a fancy word for "molten gobs of reactor core".
by jay77 at 3/30/2011 12:10:15 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:10:15 AM" ) )6:10 PM
<-- found pt 4 of it most interesting.. but seriously, who came up with the idea of analyzing corium by shooting it with an AK-47.. I have my doubt this would be an option that would be considered in Japan
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:09:37 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:09:37 AM" ) )6:09 PM
images.scribblelive.com bringing this photo agai. there is a worker right in the center standing in a door. right above him i would expect the reactor vessel or the containment. one might identify some round strtucture there.
by Matsuoko at 3/30/2011 12:09:34 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:09:34 AM" ) )6:09 PM
@Pedro Jesus Not sure if your question was answered but yes some of the uranium 238 in fuel rods after sufficient use will capture a slow neutron will decay into plutonium 239 I understand that this Pu goes on to provide a considerable boost to the reactor core. As Dean mentioned the specifics of how much is converted etc is vastly different in different reactors, in reactors that produce more fuel than they consume (so called breeder reactors) the Pu production is a required part of the normal operation of the reactor. In the BWR's we are looking at the Pu production could be thought of as a bonus as it does extend the fuel life.
by Gordon at 3/30/2011 12:08:14 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:08:14 AM" ) )6:08 PM
Ibaraki finally broke below 600 (598) Gy/h on SPEEDI.
by marie rich at 3/30/2011 12:06:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:06:35 AM" ) )6:06 PM
BBC Horizon - Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus: www.youtube.com
by sgt fuzzyboots at 3/30/2011 12:05:32 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:05:32 AM" ) )6:05 PM
or smothered by, that is
by Apollo at 3/30/2011 12:03:51 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:03:51 AM" ) )6:03 PM
by VeenOui via Pointscope01.jp at 3/30/2011 12:03:31 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:03:31 AM" ) )6:03 PM
@dean: educational photos. Imagine that slag glowing red & smothered in insulating sea salt.
by Apollo at 3/30/2011 12:02:51 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:02:51 AM" ) )6:02 PM
@dean, yeah, otherwise you could not take a photograph.
by Peter Melzer at 3/30/2011 12:02:35 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:02:35 AM" ) )6:02 PM
Hi Dean, great to have you back. If there is a core breach and even larger amounts of radiation are released, what is the potential radius around Fukushima that could be in danger? (Obviously a lot of varying factors)
by Duncan at 3/30/2011 12:02:17 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:02:17 AM" ) )6:02 PM
there are also a few youtube videos of people investigating the corium etc. in the basements there, all really eerie
by sims at 3/30/2011 12:01:45 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:01:45 AM" ) )6:01 PM
@marie rich Agree. Our spanish expert mentions the paint on glowy clock dials in this context.
by es at 3/30/2011 12:01:29 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:01:29 AM" ) )6:01 PM
he is... this was a long time after I believe
by dean at 3/30/2011 12:01:01 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:01:01 AM" ) )6:01 PM
@dean Scary!
by Pedro Jesus at 3/30/2011 12:00:37 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:00:37 AM" ) )6:00 PM
@dean, makes you wonder whether the photographer is still alive.
by Peter Melzer at 3/30/2011 12:00:37 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:00:37 AM" ) )6:00 PM
please disregard that one goof up of the view of fukushima reactors
by dean at 3/30/2011 12:00:11 AMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/30/2011 12:00:11 AM" ) )6:00 PM
@dean : wow ! makes me shiver.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:59:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:59:48 PM" ) )5:59 PM
I wasn't sure if anyone had seen the corium photos but thought I would post them..
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:59:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:59:35 PM" ) )5:59 PM
@Scillak The Independent are a reputable UK news agency.
by es at 3/29/2011 11:59:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:59:24 PM" ) )5:59 PM
corium at chernobyl
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:59:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:59:09 PM" ) )5:59 PM
think it'll be a few months until we can see pictures of the corium at fukushima..
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:58:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:58:50 PM" ) )5:58 PM
@sims I've been wondering that. Some enhancements have shown a greenish glow rather that the bluish that characterizes Cherenkov radiation.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:58:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:58:45 PM" ) )5:58 PM
corium at chernobyl
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:58:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:58:40 PM" ) )5:58 PM
oops.. sorry wrong picture..
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:58:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:58:15 PM" ) )5:58 PM
@FradyKat then wouldn't they have lites on every nite, not just some? And it is caugth on the last frame of some days and first frame of others. Sorry, it's not really imp. Sort of like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:58:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:58:10 PM" ) )5:58 PM
corium
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:57:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:57:59 PM" ) )5:57 PM
@Marie Never mind! Cherenkov, I got it, thanks.
by Bev at 3/29/2011 11:57:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:57:15 PM" ) )5:57 PM
corium
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:57:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:57:15 PM" ) )5:57 PM
Thank you, Spanish speaker, for posting that interview. He makes a comment that the external containment is of such poor quality that it's not that much different than Chernobyl, which had none.
by Christine at 3/29/2011 11:57:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:57:08 PM" ) )5:57 PM
not that that makes it any easier to explain
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:57:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:57:03 PM" ) )5:57 PM
also, isn't cherenkov radiation normally blue, the light in that picture is green ;)
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:56:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:56:51 PM" ) )5:56 PM
@Bev oh, just can't let that ole webcam glow go, i guess. Link, scroll down: translate.google.es
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:56:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:56:16 PM" ) )5:56 PM
They probably have lights at night, but the tepco webcam turns off at like 7pm local.
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 11:56:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:56:08 PM" ) )5:56 PM
@Alin they should ship it to fuku
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:56:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:56:02 PM" ) )5:56 PM
Page 242
@Marie Cherenko? I'm lost...
by Bev at 3/29/2011 11:54:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:54:51 PM" ) )5:54 PM
once the fuel melts and mixes with the other structural components it is called that corium or LAVA like material which would be glowing hot like envisioning lava.. perhaps at the very outer surfaces changing colors because of lower temperatures that the lava like material... I will show some photos of the corium in the chernobyl accident.. some photos take by boring a hole in to an area and inserting a tiny camera...
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:54:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:54:49 PM" ) )5:54 PM
@Natalie, yuhu!
by Peter Melzer at 3/29/2011 11:54:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:54:32 PM" ) )5:54 PM
@sims darn sure it's not smoke, orr work lights cause I've been seeing it for a long time. different in shape,intensity, and not always there. My personal feeling is it's some kind of luminesence from xenon snd tellurium isotopes with alloy metals to lite 'em up. think glow sticks
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:54:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:54:07 PM" ) )5:54 PM
I remember it was said that it takes 7 days to shutdown under normal conditions, but with some melted rods, I wonder how many days longer it takes?
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 11:53:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:53:55 PM" ) )5:53 PM
i dont know how likely the possibility of cherenkov glow is, but i do know that if i was tepco i would want to have some lights out there to see some more of what might be going on at night
by sgt fuzzyboots at 3/29/2011 11:53:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:53:33 PM" ) )5:53 PM
I don't know anything about this news site, but article claims high pay for those who will work at plant. Think it's legit? www.independent.co.uk
by Scillak at 3/29/2011 11:53:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:53:32 PM" ) )5:53 PM
@Pedro - they have a device for measuring it: "The Digital Cherenkov Viewing Device (DCVD) is currently used by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors for gross defect verification of spent nuclear fuel assemblies in storage ponds. A Cherenkov image is obtained from the spent fuel and the verification is made by the detection of unique Cherenkov characteristics of spent fuel. To take advantage of its quantitative capabilities, the DCVD is now being investigated to determine its ability to detect partial defects down to the 30 percent level."
by Alin at 3/29/2011 11:52:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:52:08 PM" ) )5:52 PM
@stef as stable as a fault line
by George Gibb at 3/29/2011 11:51:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:51:32 PM" ) )5:51 PM
@matsuoko sure, but there are many other things that can emit light something burning/glowing sounds more likely to me than cherenkov radiation tbh.. especially considering smoke was visible on several days
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:51:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:51:17 PM" ) )5:51 PM
by George Gibb at 3/29/2011 11:50:41 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:41 PM" ) )5:50 PM
@marie rich I can read Spanish. I'll take a look. Thanks.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:50:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:39 PM" ) )5:50 PM
and water !
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:50:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:36 PM" ) )5:50 PM
@Pedro Jesus The spanish expert did admit he had no tables in front of him regarding the emission spectrum of uranuim. He added that burning metals and oxidation can also produce emissions.
by es at 3/29/2011 11:50:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:29 PM" ) )5:50 PM
@Pedro Jesus He didn't say, that I recall. translation is rough link: translate.google.es
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:50:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:13 PM" ) )5:50 PM
by George Gibb at 3/29/2011 11:50:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:07 PM" ) )5:50 PM
@ all ...so the situation is stable, basically.
by stef at 3/29/2011 11:50:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:50:03 PM" ) )5:50 PM
@Pedro Jesus it needs uranium and plutonium ....
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:49:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:49:58 PM" ) )5:49 PM
@all (I apologize for insisting) Has that expert you are talking about mentioned that Cherenkov radiation can be emitted by spent fuel rods?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:49:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:49:19 PM" ) )5:49 PM
FROM THE JAPAN TIMES search.japantimes.co.jp Tokyo Electric Power Co. is expected to improve the tough working environment of its employees and other workers trying to bring the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant under control, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Banri Kaieda said Tuesday. Kaieda, deputy head of the nuclear disaster task force set up by the government and Tepco, said around 500 to 600 people were at one point lodging in a building on the plant's premises and that was "not a situation in which minimum sleep and food could be ensured."
His remarks came after an official in the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency reported that workers were only eating two meals a day, such as crackers and dried rice, and sleeping in conference rooms and hallways in the building.
The official stayed at the nuclear plant for five days through Saturday to check on progress in the ongoing operations.
Kaieda said he was also told that not all workers had been equipped with lead sheeting to shield them from possible radiation contamination on the floors while sleeping.
"The workers, as well as the Self-Defense Forces and firefighters, are working under extremely harsh conditions . . . so (the conditions for) food and sleep must be improved first," Kaieda said.
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 11:49:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:49:14 PM" ) )5:49 PM
well, i'm guessing if the patient has cancer already, they don't have to worry about potentially inducing more cancer in that area later on assuming they can get rid of the current one
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:48:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:48:55 PM" ) )5:48 PM
@sims : but in complete darkness ?!?
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:48:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:48:47 PM" ) )5:48 PM
@dean I still wonder if that glow is ssome kind of luminescence; flourescence
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:48:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:48:00 PM" ) )5:48 PM
@dean : then they will build a hospital for nuclear medicine on that site . . ingenious ! :)
#
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:47:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:47:14 PM" ) )5:47 PM
@dean, you are right. Iodine-131 used to be used to treat thyroid cancer for decades, and Tc-99m is one of the most widely used radionuclides in diagnostic nuclear medicine. For example, it is used to detect bone cancers.
by Peter Melzer at 3/29/2011 11:47:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:47:02 PM" ) )5:47 PM
have their been any thermal images of the plant recently ?
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 11:46:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:46:58 PM" ) )5:46 PM
@Matsuoko My bad , said he didn't know which one. They have a pic on there.
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:46:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:46:46 PM" ) )5:46 PM
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:45:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:45:15 PM" ) )5:45 PM
@Sky I caught Wikipedia editing the Diablo Canyon entry...
by Bobby1 at 3/29/2011 11:45:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:45:06 PM" ) )5:45 PM
Has that expert you are talking about mentioned that Cherenkov radiation can be emitted by spent fuel rods?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:44:20 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:44:20 PM" ) )5:44 PM
and i doubt we have radiation approaching an open reactor core in the air above
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:43:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:43:21 PM" ) )5:43 PM
marie.. I wonder.. hypothetically if we could do a horizontal slice through the reactor at the elevation to look down into the vessel core, or above the fuel pool storage tanks, would we see a orange/red glowing mass of fuel... and debris?
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:43:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:43:21 PM" ) )5:43 PM
The guardian article posted this morning would support Marie's statement.
by Maureen Burke at 3/29/2011 11:43:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:43:12 PM" ) )5:43 PM
@marie TBH, that glow looks way too intense for cherenkov from that distance.. even the cherenkov radiation you see in photos looking straight into reactor cores isn't that intensive
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:43:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:43:06 PM" ) )5:43 PM
@Matsuoko Yes, gives one that certain 'glow' ha ha
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:41:44 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:41:44 PM" ) )5:41 PM
now there are isotopes of uranium fission that are beneficial.. like Co60, Irridium 192, Cs131 which are used for medical purposes and indrustrial sources for X-RAY exams... Cesium 131 has a 1/2 life of 9 days and they make small tiny balls of it then rush it to hospitals and they inject a prostrate tumor with the tiny seed of Cs131 and it kills the prostrate tumor inside out and then in 9 days,, decays to a stable state and is left in ... thus saving a hard prostrate cancer surgery .
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:41:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:41:34 PM" ) )5:41 PM
@es :yeah but no way for that intense glowing.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:41:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:41:17 PM" ) )5:41 PM
@Matsuoko Yeah, emphasis on 'nearly'. There are cracks...
by es at 3/29/2011 11:40:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:40:32 PM" ) )5:40 PM
@marie rich : but it must be #3, #2 has walls around. but interesting, that an "expert" confirmed it.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:40:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:40:31 PM" ) )5:40 PM
@MaryMary Right. Well I'm going to go check that wiki. I know it pretty well, haven't looked at it today.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:40:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:40:12 PM" ) )5:40 PM
@Matsuoko translation was rough, but I thought 2, idk. At least we know we weren't seeing nothing
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:39:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:39:25 PM" ) )5:39 PM
the study of reactor fuels, enrichment, fast versus thermal neutrons for fission, mixture of fuels are all one area of nuclear engineering that are unique to different reactors. the most significant thing is when people talk of PLUTONIUM because IT IS the one of higher consequence to cancer rates and stays around a long long time...
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:38:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:38:45 PM" ) )5:38 PM
@marie rich : #2 ? but #2 is nearly undamaged. you mean #3 ?
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:38:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:38:29 PM" ) )5:38 PM
@dean This is a doubt that arouse sometime today: can plutonium be found in spent fuel from this reactor design they have in Fukushima power plant?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:37:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:37:38 PM" ) )5:37 PM
@Matsuoko Julio Gutierrez, head of nuclear physics dpt. of Alcala University says the glow on tepco cam is probably cherenko from #2 reactor
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:37:22 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:37:22 PM" ) )5:37 PM
Page 241
@Jim Carver ...re: the accident....the real one and the "revisionist" one? lol...
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 11:37:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:37:02 PM" ) )5:37 PM
right on breeder reactors
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:35:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:35:07 PM" ) )5:35 PM
@stef "the reactors are recovering" and "there has been no radioactive water poured into the ocean" . so, everything is super !
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 11:32:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:32:48 PM" ) )5:32 PM
@Sky It is generally not that hard when designing a structure like a tank, dome, vessel etc to make it strong in both directions and the extra cost not very much at all. Having said that unless it was included in the brief it would be unusual for an engineer to design it that way and leave himself open to charges of wasting the clients money making it stronger than the brief.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:32:23 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:32:23 PM" ) )5:32 PM
sky, in concrete design, the real strength comes from the rebar. concrete performs very well under compressive strength but need the rebar to perform well under tensile strength, the containments at reactors are designed to withstand so many pounds per square inch pressure internally.. and then have the strength from impacts through the rebar and concrete...
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:32:20 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:32:20 PM" ) )5:32 PM
@dean That would be a breeder reactor, right?
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:31:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:31:45 PM" ) )5:31 PM
@Sky That's why you should check sources on WikiPedia whenever available and possible.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:31:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:31:16 PM" ) )5:31 PM
@dean oh, that's right. They put U-238 in to make Pu (don't know isotope) to make bombs.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:30:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:30:54 PM" ) )5:30 PM
@stef Situation is stable. Getting slightly better in a general sense.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:30:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:30:26 PM" ) )5:30 PM
@Jim Carver ...no...this was either about the plant or TEPCO themselves. I haven't been back for a couple days, but I thought all the info about TEPCO's cover-ups was on their site at one time also...don't think it is now. @ Sky...yes...I like Wikipedia...easy (most of the time) for a lay-person to understand. But, yes, I think it's "fluid", shall I say?
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 11:30:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:30:26 PM" ) )5:30 PM
A reminder to newcomers etc that you can inform yourselves on the static thread regarding what has been discussed.From @Brad - I've started creating individual pages that feature maps, photographs, illustrations, and videos that people have embedded into their posts over the past several days. www.poudreinterCheck netservice.com Brads post can be found at the top for easy reference
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 11:30:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:30:24 PM" ) )5:30 PM
yes lethbridgean.. I don't think it breached the back side.. from my profession in nuclear field
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:29:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:29:49 PM" ) )5:29 PM
I have seen posts that says plutonium comes from U FISSION.. but remember it's from U238, NOT U235...
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:29:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:29:06 PM" ) )5:29 PM
Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of data sources, true. There have been many accusations regarding different topics that people have gone in and redacted the information to slant it for or against themself or to portray something in a preferred light. So yes, take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but it's still a useful resource at times.......
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:28:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:28:57 PM" ) )5:28 PM
Hi everyone...its been a minute. I have been trying to stay focused on work instead of worrying. What is the situation? Worse? Better? I saw that it was slowly getting better...
by stef at 3/29/2011 11:28:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:28:42 PM" ) )5:28 PM
@dean Would be nice to see that block close up after the F4 hit it..
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:28:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:28:35 PM" ) )5:28 PM
@MaryMary: Wikipedia has a revision history (at the top of the page)
by Alin at 3/29/2011 11:28:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:28:32 PM" ) )5:28 PM
@MaryMary I was just wondering the same. It's missing some tables and a lot of information. I wonder who did it?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:28:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:28:12 PM" ) )5:28 PM
@MaryMary the one about the accident? There are two now.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:27:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:27:36 PM" ) )5:27 PM
Dean, I haven't viewed it yet, but from a structural engineering perspective the need of the concrete structure to hold internal pressure in, versus to be stiff in the face of an external pressure (jet), these two are different scenarios. The forces involved and how they would be engineered to withstand pressure coming from opposite directions is different. I'm not a structural engineer and this is just my layperson's understanding but I believe it to be accurate. Other opinions from real engineers?
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:27:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:27:19 PM" ) )5:27 PM
Ouiee ven or matousoko (SP.?) around? They actually discussed the tepco webcam pic and the guy said it was cherenkov The interview with Julio Gutierrez, head of nuclear physics dpt. of Alcala University is finished.
You can reach the original thread here:
www.burbuja.info
A compiled version of this interview can be read here:
capitandelasardina.wordpress.com
A google-translated version in English:
translate.google.es
by spanish_reader at 3/29/2011 11:02:04 PM6:02 PM
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 11:27:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:27:19 PM" ) )5:27 PM
@Jo Lindien ....well...kinda off subject...but I swear the wikipedia Fukushima site info has been changed. I know that's where I first read about the reactor vessel being damaged when it was made, but later I couldn't find it again....maybe I'm getting too suspicious...
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 11:26:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:26:06 PM" ) )5:26 PM
But remember we still get Pu from U fission.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:25:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:25:48 PM" ) )5:25 PM
@MaryMary This is so interesting! but I have to earn a living so should not be on here! You are correct - the workers on the roof of the turbine / generator building were limited to 45 seconds at the work face and despite clear briefings to use shovels etc some video footage shows them actually picking up graphite blocks with gloved hands, some of these no doubt contained fuel! In various other areas workers were allowed to work 2 mins.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:25:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:25:45 PM" ) )5:25 PM
your welcome :)
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 11:25:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:25:03 PM" ) )5:25 PM
hello to all, I have a video of a test jet crashing into a concrete wall to show the strength of the containment vessel of a reactor, this is not like the walls that exploded in fukushima but is like the domes on the reactors seen around.. www.youtube.com
by dean at 3/29/2011 11:25:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:25:01 PM" ) )5:25 PM
@sims Thank you I see it quote "There is no MOX fuel in any of the ponds"
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 11:24:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:24:35 PM" ) )5:24 PM
@Lethbridgean :)
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:24:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:24:13 PM" ) )5:24 PM
@Jim Carver: Dont worry I am older too, My memory is pretty sharp, body not so much..read failing.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:23:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:23:46 PM" ) )5:23 PM
search for MOX on that page - it's the 3rd one
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 11:23:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:23:38 PM" ) )5:23 PM
@NHK Listener: "Unit 3's pool contains 566 fuel assemblies. There is no MOX fuel in any of the ponds." in the sectioin about fuel ponds
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:23:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:23:12 PM" ) )5:23 PM
There is no MOX fuel in any of the ponds. - from sms link
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 11:22:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:22:51 PM" ) )5:22 PM
@Pedro Jesus: no need to apologize, just noticing this strange difference in the reports !
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:22:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:22:34 PM" ) )5:22 PM
Some of the official (Tepco) time line cannot be trusted as they have retracted many things that make them look bad.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:22:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:22:28 PM" ) )5:22 PM
@Jojo I don't know what happened but I guess that's the main source of the radiation. Some details we will only know maybe months from now when (hopefully) the situation gets under control and they can then investigate the whole matter thoroughly.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:22:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:22:21 PM" ) )5:22 PM
@Lethbridgean That is a fact. Easily confirmed. No MOX in spent fuel storage. They had just started using it. Nov. 2010 I think. But now my memory comes into question so...
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:22:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:22:11 PM" ) )5:22 PM
@sims I gues you will need to point it out better I don't see where it says the are zero mox in the pool
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 11:22:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:22:11 PM" ) )5:22 PM
NHK world latest report--just noticed a little model of the Eiffel tower behind the fellow with the pointer. Is that new since now they are getting help from France?
by ariadne at 3/29/2011 11:21:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:21:09 PM" ) )5:21 PM
@Gordon ...when you mentioned the men only working for up to 2 minutes I remembered the footage in the vid. They actually RAN to the place where they were to work...worked 45 seconds...then ran back....
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 11:20:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:20:50 PM" ) )5:20 PM
@Jo Lindien I don't recall NISA's assessment of the situation. The quote I posted is in TEPCO's website. I forgot to link. I apologize. Updated status of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. www.tepco.co.jp
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:20:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:20:17 PM" ) )5:20 PM
2sky: U r right...with the dearth of news people want something to talk about. I am afraid discussion is not going anywhere.
by Optim at 3/29/2011 11:20:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:20:09 PM" ) )5:20 PM
@all: OK, got to go and sleep a while; thanks to all for chatting and sharing; will come back, sy
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:19:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:45 PM" ) )5:19 PM
Yes, they got it from IAEA who got it from Tepco, I believe. The same data has been cited in tables since the beginning, to my recollection. Please disregard my first post because I hit enter prematurely and had not removed the wikipedia footnote from the line; the numbers in brackets were a footnote not a fuel rod count.
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:19:43 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:43 PM" ) )5:19 PM
@NHK Listener The MOX was just installed in reactor #3. I don't think the spent fuel pool had any Mox rods in it. Just uranium rods.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:19:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:38 PM" ) )5:19 PM
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:19:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:36 PM" ) )5:19 PM
Page 240
@Pedro Jesus Well it explains an awful lot, right? The fuel rods had no water on them for days, what do you think happened?
by Jojo at 3/29/2011 11:19:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:31 PM" ) )5:19 PM
@Pedro Jesus and in the cooling pool
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 11:19:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:24 PM" ) )5:19 PM
@MaryMary Yes I have viewed that before, poses some interesting problems huh?
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:19:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:19:14 PM" ) )5:19 PM
@sims All the reliable sources say the MOX is inside the reactor.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:18:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:18:59 PM" ) )5:18 PM
@Pedro Jesus: NISA do not talk about #4 explosion, they say "part of the wall in the operation area of unit 4 was damaged (06:14 March 15th)". Don't remember myself.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:18:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:18:50 PM" ) )5:18 PM
@sims What source. I posted mine Link?
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 11:18:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:18:33 PM" ) )5:18 PM
@Sky That is consistent to the information I've seen from different sources so it should be accurate.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:18:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:18:29 PM" ) )5:18 PM
guess you'll need to pick which source you want to believe about where the MOX is :)
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:17:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:17:36 PM" ) )5:17 PM
In reactors 1-6 Core fuel assemblies 400, 548, 548, 0, 548, 764.
In stored fuel pools 1-6 292, 587, 514, 1331, 946, 876. Of the ones in spent fuel pool 4, some were removed from the reactor for maintenance and are not "spent". There is also a comon fuel storage pool some distance from the reactors that also requires cooling although the fuel it contains is older spent fuel. Sorry for the messy post. Source: en.wikipedia.org
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:17:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:17:18 PM" ) )5:17 PM
@Gordon ...it's 45 minutes or so, but well worth it IMO. Some wild footage from inside...
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 11:17:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:17:16 PM" ) )5:17 PM
@Jojo But it's still only a theory, not an assessment of the situation.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:17:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:17:12 PM" ) )5:17 PM
@Jim Carver As I recall they've reported opening ventilation 'windows' for Units 2, 5 & 6
by es at 3/29/2011 11:17:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:17:04 PM" ) )5:17 PM
@Sky Yeah so mox stored in 3
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 11:16:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:16:45 PM" ) )5:16 PM
@MaryMary Thanks Mary, will have a look!
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:16:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:16:13 PM" ) )5:16 PM
@Sky No harm in refreshing our memories. =)
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:15:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:15:54 PM" ) )5:15 PM
@you The guy does consulting in the nuclear industry. His opinion (which he outlines in detail), is that it's likely the "inner" core has been breached and molten core is pooled at the bottom of the outer core. Hence the high radiation levels in the basement at #2.
by Jojo at 3/29/2011 11:15:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:15:48 PM" ) )5:15 PM
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:15:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:15:42 PM" ) )5:15 PM
@Gordon: such a fire, in the whole building (look how it's damaged !) with a thick black smoke is likely to be from hydrocarbur burning, then oil in such a case. But oil would not catch fire by itself, only if brought to high temperature. The second fire may have been a resurgence of the first one: it was reported that the fire have dropped by themselves; but often fire does not drop, it's just smoldering, and can grow again some time later
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:15:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:15:21 PM" ) )5:15 PM
@Lethbridgean Well awhile back they said that.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:15:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:15:17 PM" ) )5:15 PM
This is a repetition but people are again asking about the number of fuel rods.
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:15:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:15:09 PM" ) )5:15 PM
@Gordon ...someone posted this Google video last night...very interesting visits and interviews with those who were there...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5968506788418521112# Lots of vid of the inside of the reactor, the corium, etc.
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 11:14:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:14:42 PM" ) )5:14 PM
@Jim Carver ummm no.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:14:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:14:21 PM" ) )5:14 PM
"Unit 4 (outage due to regular inspection)
-At approximately 6 am on March 15th, we confirmed the explosive sound and
the sustained damage around the 5th floor rooftop area of the Nuclear
Reactor Building.
-On March 15th and 16th, we respectively confirmed the outbreak of fire at
the 4th floor of the northwestern part of the Nuclear Reactor Building.
We immediately reported this matter to the fire department and the
related authorities. TEPCO employees confirmed that each fire had already
died down by itself.
-At this moment, we do not consider any reactor coolant leakage inside the
reactor happened." [Source: TEPCO]
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:14:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:14:05 PM" ) )5:14 PM
@Sky I must admit this does confuse me, 250mSv/year is horrendous! in 10 years that is a total of 2.5Sv. I freely admit I do not understand this issue completely - The criteria for evacuation at Chernobyl was a probable lifetime dose of 350mSv, can anyone explain this to me please?
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:14:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:14:04 PM" ) )5:14 PM
@Lethbridgean I think they knocked a hole in that one for ventilation.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:13:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:13:46 PM" ) )5:13 PM
@Salvador I see how it looks now, yes, but the decay of that building has been rather slower. I agree it looks likely an explosion has occured at some point, and that of course there MAY have been unreported explosions. Consider also that TEPCO workers may have tried to gain access to the SFP by other means, to try to get water to the pool.
by es at 3/29/2011 11:13:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:13:18 PM" ) )5:13 PM
@Salvador I am pretty sure there was a boom in building #4 as well. Just not as big as the others.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:12:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:12:45 PM" ) )5:12 PM
@Salvador You can also see the bottom of the building is push out in places
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 11:12:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:12:13 PM" ) )5:12 PM
Look at the building of No. 4!!! There is no doubt that there was an explosion. If it were "only" two fires the damage would look totally different.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 11:11:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:11:12 PM" ) )5:11 PM
Remember that hydrogen can be given off just by irradiating water, Radiolysys - the dissociation of molecules by nuclear radiation. So a Hydrogen explosion or fire does not mean fuel cladding burning
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 11:10:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:10:12 PM" ) )5:10 PM
@Jo Lindien That makes sense.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:10:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:10:01 PM" ) )5:10 PM
@Lethbridgean: I just wanted to say that at a time of an hydrogen explosion there must have been water there; not that there would always have been some water remaining at any time !
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:09:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:09:25 PM" ) )5:09 PM
@Jo Lindien Ah perhaps one of those was a fuel rod fire and one was the oil / machinery fire? Thoughts anyone?
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:09:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:09:18 PM" ) )5:09 PM
by Jojo at 3/29/2011 11:09:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:09:16 PM" ) )5:09 PM
@Salvador no very spectacular televised explosion? :)
by sims at 3/29/2011 11:09:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:09:10 PM" ) )5:09 PM
@es Come on and look at that building. Tell me that there was no explosion again. Repeat. Look at the hole on the south side of #4, the side NOT looking at No.3. Look at that crane, ripped from it's normal place hanging into the SFP. Telll me there was no explosion....
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 11:08:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:08:15 PM" ) )5:08 PM
Assessment and
management of ageing of major
nuclear power plant components
important to safety:
BWR pressure vessels www-pub.iaea.org
by Tenzing at 3/29/2011 11:08:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:08:14 PM" ) )5:08 PM
@Kristian Any given rod is not the same as another they are so hugely variable after being used that there is no rule of thumb for that, but given that it is a possibility, I would think it unwise. Not to mention the dangers of spreading radioactivity, pilot contamination, rigger / dogman contamination ....
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:08:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:08:01 PM" ) )5:08 PM
@Jo Lindien At one point it was reported by Tepco that the water level was below measurable amounts. Meaning below the sight glass.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 11:07:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:07:28 PM" ) )5:07 PM
@Jill in Sweden - Bit late to the show here but can you elaborate on the news that Swedish authorities were advising everyone with a 150mile radius of Fukushima to take potassium iodide? You say they've retracted this advice?
by Duncan at 3/29/2011 11:07:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:07:09 PM" ) )5:07 PM
@Sky Correct.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 11:06:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:06:38 PM" ) )5:06 PM
@Salvador @es: my bad: there was no explosion in #4, from NISA reports, but "just" fire twice.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:05:30 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:05:30 PM" ) )5:05 PM
If a worker has received his 250mS/year dose, then he cannot work in a location exposed to further radiation dose for 1 year, that is my understanding. The news organizations often bungle reporting of quantitative details or exposure/time, by using the wrong unit or omitting the time unit.
by Sky at 3/29/2011 11:04:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:04:50 PM" ) )5:04 PM
Lahey did say that it was likely that the core at least partially melted and some is on the drywell floor. "The reason we are concerned is that they are detecting water outside the containment area that is highly radioactive and it can only have come from the reactor core,...", . He also added that the mass forms a blob that becomes increasingly difficult to cool. Robert Peter Gale who is a US Medical Researcher who helped the Russians during Chernobyl said, "My recommendation is they should consider establishing a small commission to independently convert the data into comprehensible units of risk for the public so people know what they are dealing with and can take sensible decisions." Quoted from: www.guardian.co.uk
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 11:04:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:04:40 PM" ) )5:04 PM
@ariadne Not sure about here but yes that was the case in Chernobyl, I understand that there were no more than approx 10,000 workers on site at any given time but that the total number of workers was approx 500,000! Apparently whole train loads were imported, briefed, they then ran to the work face, spent as little as 45 seconds - 2 mins working, ran back, were decontaminated and put straight back on the train with instructions (only as they were leaving) to not work in the nuclear industry and to limit medical radiation for the rest of their lives.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 11:03:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:03:52 PM" ) ) Tuesday, March 29 2011 5:03 PM
