Originally Posted by Copperfield

The article you posted was little more than an editorial and while it was an effective display of common radiation hysteria ("mini Chernobyl's" was an especially nice touch) it was lacking in facts. I'm asking you Deb, if you know how radiation works. I only ask because I get the impression that you don't. Not knowing something is perfectly fine however given your clear high level of fear over radiation boogeymen I am simply suggesting that you might want to research these things (that is actually learn the processes involved for yourself as opposed to repeatedly citing Greenpeace as an expert).

But let's start with Fukushima Deb. How many people are expected to die as a result of the meltdown? What was the average radiation exposure of citizens living in the surrounding prefecture from the incident? What are the expected impacts from that exposure? What chemicals were released and in what quantities?

While the following article is trying to determine what to do about nuclear energy to make it safer, it has a few statistics that are important.

The unthinkable


The unthinkable happened on March 11, 2011, when a magnitude 9 earthquake, the biggest in Japan's recorded history, hit the country's northeast. It generated a tsunami along 860 kilometers (534 miles) of coastline, leaving 18,520 people dead or missing and thousands more displaced.


At Tokyo Electric's Dai-Ichi nuclear station on the coast of Fukushima prefecture, the quake and tsunami knocked out power supply, leading to three reactor meltdowns. The radiation released forced the evacuation of 160,000 people in the area, 240 kilometers north of Tokyo. Dai-Ichi today remains inside a public no-go zone that's policed year-round.


The disaster forced Japan's policymakers to look at other nuclear plants at risk and they zeroed in on one: Hamaoka, 189 kilometers southwest of Tokyo.
Decades of research by seismologists such as Katsuhiko Ishibashi had described Hamaoka as Japan's most dangerous atomic station because it's closer to Tokyo and near an earthquake fault line.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nu...#ixzz2w3Bw74eZ

And, radiation exposure has ramifications and scars for many years. In addition, our climate change and other forms of destruction of our planet, has not only our weather changing but earthquakes are happening in areas that were unheard of before. It would seem to me that this would be a very slippery slope as to where to build a nuclear plant. Be it above ground or below, earthquakes have a way of creating a weapon of mass destruction.

So, basically just more polemics then. Fair enough. You are, after all, a Boomer.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

So, basically just more polemics then. Fair enough. You are, after all, a Boomer.

Yep, that would be me and a few others here on the forum.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Yep, that would be me and a few others here on the forum.

Nicely done. BTW, I like your hat.

Originally Posted by Deb C

While the following article is trying to determine what to do about nuclear energy to make it safer, it has a few statistics that are important.

It answered none of the questions I asked you. Again: What is the total expected death toll from the Fukushima meltdown? How much radiation were nearby residents exposed to during the meltdown? What was the amount of contamination in the area?

I'm not picking these questions out of a hat Deb. Think of it as a learning experience. After all, you are clearly afraid of nuclear power and so this is an opportunity to educate yourself (as opposed to reading hysteria-based articles). I bet you will be really surprised by the answers you find.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It answered none of the questions I asked you. Again: What is the total expected death toll from the Fukushima meltdown? How much radiation were nearby residents exposed to during the meltdown? What was the amount of contamination in the area?

I'm not picking these questions out of a hat Deb. Think of it as a learning experience. After all, you are clearly afraid of nuclear power and so this is an opportunity to educate yourself (as opposed to reading hysteria-based articles). I bet you will be really surprised by the answers you find.

If you know the answers to your questions, how about sharing them with me?

Once we have those death tolls, let's compare it to coal mining death tolls while we are at it.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Once we have those death tolls, let's compare it to coal mining death tolls while we are at it.

Or to people falling off of roofs while installing solar panels. Or miners dying of silicosis.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If you know the answers to your questions, how about sharing them with me?

Because by seeking out that information for yourself you will not only be learning factual information, you will also be learning how to identify myth and hysteria when you see it.

I would suggest you start with the wiki and work your way up from there. You will likely want to do further research to understand terms like Sievert and Becquerel. You will want to understand the properties of Iodine-131 and Caesium-137.

This should help as well. As should the article I linked to above.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Because by seeking out that information for yourself you will not only be learning factual information, you will also be learning how to identify myth and hysteria when you see it.

I would suggest you start with the wiki and work your way up from there. You will likely want to do further research to understand terms like Sievert and Becquerel. You will want to understand the properties of Iodine-131 and Caesium-137.

Even the wiki link seems to have some disagreements. Case in point:

Is anyone else of the view that most of the content of this article is not relevant to the effects of radiation? According to the title, this article is specifically about "RADIATION EFFECTS" - yet almost the entire article does not discuss effects (either observed or projected). For example, even in the opening paragraph, only the very first sentence is actually relevant to the direct effects or radiation. The second, third and fifth paragraphs make no mention of effects at all. I'm considering starting a major overhaul of this article, but doing it bit by bit so that people can comment etc. A lot of this might simply involve deleting irrelevant sections and information. Suggestions? Objections?Ecoltom (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)This article has become unnecessarily lengthy, and there is considerable irrelevant content. It should be re-organized and edited down. Paragraphs should be concise and to the point. Even material that is sourced isnt necssarily crucial to the article, there needs to be focus. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013

(UTC)I moved the "Summarised daily events" section to the bottom of the article. Frankly, it does not discuss *effects*, and there is already a whole Wikipedia article for the Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. I'll leave it at the bottom for now and if no one object for a while will delete it.Ecoltom (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This article does concern the effects that radiation has on the surroundings of the plant, the living environment of the people there, and the pollution, that has been created there.... Why is that not a "radiation effect" ?.1947enkidu (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Agreed, details on the source term and releases should only be supportive to evidence of the effects of radioactive releases.

I take issue with the use of Becquerels and TeraBecquerels as in the phrase "An estimated 538,100 terabecquerels (TBq) of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released." This sounds like a great deal, but in fact it does not even measure the quantities of the offending isotopes. One becquerel, Bq, is one radioactive emission per second. Since 134 grams of Cs-134 include about 6 times 10 to the power 23 atoms, the verb "was released" is erroneous, and if such a rate were measured, it is equivalent to 5.4 times ten to the power 17 events per second, less than 134 millionths of a gram. But that's nonsense too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.52.130 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll have to do further research.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Yep, that would be me and a few others here on the forum. <snip smiley>

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.





Generation X-ray



Attn Xer's I do think Deb is already a denizen of the Flame War II thread. 3 Images in 1? Sheesh Deb, you pig.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Even the wiki link seems to have some disagreements.

Of course. It's a wiki. Disagreement in wikis leads to refinement.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I think I'll have to do further research.

There you go.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, then find a curently available and viable alternative ... viable being the operative word.

Solar and wind power are available and viable.

Spent fuel is already stored near people. First, it goes in the on-site pool, and the pool fills over time. The oldest fuel rods are then removed to casks. The pools and casks stay in place, because we can't agree to store the stuff anywhere. The French glassify their waste and store it in a mountain, so it can be done. Since we can't seem to agree on a place in the vast barren areas of Nevada, we're doing nothing. New Mexico seems more than wiling, though. It'll go into deep saltdomes, and be subsumed ... unless we disallow that too. Saltdomes are good for tens of thousands of years.

http://news.yahoo.com/fire-prompts-e...194845885.html

Originally Posted by David Krein

All one needs to know is that Jack Lemon and Jane Fonda made a movie.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

You missed timing: released to the theaters two weeks prior to the Three Mile Island accident.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Solar and wind power are available and viable.

No, it's neither.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

http://news.yahoo.com/fire-prompts-e...194845885.html

H-m-m-m. This is about a truck fire.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, it's neither.

You need to read some of what I have posted about this. It's better than just repeating the same errors.

We need to decide what is more important. To never have blackouts, and use as much energy as we want for our own pleasure, or to make sure we have a sustainable planet for life on Earth for ourselves and our posterity. If we choose the latter, then we need to get on about building solar and wind energy power plants and home sources, and electric cars, and stop fooling around and fiddling with dangerous alternatives.

H-m-m-m. This is about a truck fire.

OK.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You need to read some of what I have posted about this. It's better than just repeating the same errors.

We need to decide what is more important. To never have blackouts, and use as much energy as we want for our own pleasure, or to make sure we have a sustainable planet for life on Earth for ourselves and our posterity. If we choose the latter, then we need to get on about building solar and wind energy power plants and home sources, and electric cars, and stop fooling around and fiddling with dangerous alternatives...

Sustainabilty includes hospitals, sewage treatment plants and even traffic lights - all of which need to operate all the time, including in the middle of the night when the winds are calm.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sustainabilty includes hospitals, sewage treatment plants and even traffic lights - all of which need to operate all the time, including in the middle of the night when the winds are calm.

All of which can be operated on solar and wind, since these are baseload power. Again, read my links. Find out about batteries and grids.

If you live in South Florida, you'd better learn to swim!!

Global warming, caused by our fossil fuel use and the Republican politics that perpetuates it, will cause the sea level there to rise by about 6 feet by 2100. PBS had a story about this tonight; waters from storm drains flow onto the streets, so that you are often wading and splashing your way around town now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/us...anted=all&_r=0


The Venetian Causeway, which connects Miami and Miami Beach.

Where JB drove his rented Lamborgini over 100 miles an hour, I believe. Get your kicks while you can, I guess! In 100 years he'll need a speedboat!

Still doubt what I said about Republicans and climate change? That they are causing it (and by extension those who vote for them)?
Look again at their latest deed

Last year, atmospheric carbon dioxide briefly crossed 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. However, it didn’t cross that threshold until mid-May. This year’s first 400 ppm reading came a full two months earlier this past week and the seeming inexorable upward march is likely to race past another milestone next month.

“We’re already seeing values over 400. Probably we’ll see values dwelling over 400 in April and May. It’s just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever,” said Ralph Keeling in a blog post.

Keeling runs a carbon dioxide monitoring program for Scripps Institute of Oceanography, a position he took over from his father who started it. The program takes daily measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which sits at 11,141 feet on a volcano’s northern flank. Measurements have been recorded there continuously since March 1958. They’ve risen steadily since the first measurement of 313 ppm as humans have continued to burn more fossil fuels.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0....html?ir=Green

Even if you live in a place that got record cold and snow this winter -- be prepared for record heat.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Even if you live in a place that got record cold and snow this winter -- be prepared for record heat.

Yikes! Please tell me it's not so. A lady with hot flashes doesn't even want to think about more heat. Ugh!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

All of which can be operated on solar and wind, since these are baseload power. Again, read my links. Find out about batteries and grids.

A single hospital may use as much as 500kW of power on an ongong basis. Medical center hosptials use much more than that. Multiply that by the number of hospitals ... and realize that hospitals are only a small part of the baseload need that cannot be postponed for even a few minutes.

Eric, you are outside your knowledge space here. This cannot be overcome with batteries. Someday, a technology may exist. It doesn't now.

One good thing about the bunker; I killed off a lot of the parasitic baseload that my house consumed.

Here's a good example: previously, the average laptop external AC adapter consumed 65 watts, and was left plugged in continuously. Now, that can range from 80-150 watts. Cell phone chargers. The list goes on.

The need for network admins to have PC's "wake-on-LAN" for updates means that not even holiday periods have reductions in baseload for PC's, monitors, peripherals, etc. Can't shut the UPS's down. The server farms and data centers have to stay up. So do the switches and routers and wireless access points.