Homepage Forums Policy Fukushima nightmare

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13008
    Avatardelt0r
    Member

    Great questions. The intensity of the radiation is only enough to cause issues with heat build up and only for a short time. The radiation is decay of created elements from fission and neutron capture. Generally the created elements are not particularly corrosive or otherwise a problem. Its the fact they are radioactive that complicates everything.

    I can’t answer specifics of this particular case. But i can make some broad statements.

    First of all there is a quite a lot of info and reports on this and other things in the public domain via the IAEA. So we do in fact often know far more than popular media bothers to report on. This also include some R&D etc.

    Next there is a huge difference between a spent fuel element and a not spent one. In both cases they are cladded in material that should keep most of the resultant radioactive materials contained inside the fuel element. In the case of spent fuel there are all sorts of things and quite a few of them are soluble in water. in the case of fuel its really not such a big deal. Activity is much lower and the Pu and U oxides are fairly inert. Still cracked or otherwise compromised cladding is an issue.

    Now corrosion of both dry and wet storage can be an issue. Its complicated because basic chemistry is now more or less “wrong”, since the radiation can drive otherwise impossible modes of corrosion. Wet storage is typically less of an issue since its just the fuel element in some assembly and water. The amount of radiation goes down pretty quickly after removal from the core and then things are cool enough to consider dry storage. If the cladding cracks…. Well now you get salts etc in the water that are radioactive, but its considered bad because now it can get into the water table and be absorbed by living things.

    Fact is most radioactive things are fairly harmless if they are outside your body with only a few notable exceptions. Not so much when inside.

    #13011
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    Is there any way the gamma radiation from the spent fuel rods be reflected so as to reduce the radioactivity from these rods? Are other mitigation measures possible on site in Fukushima?

    #13012
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    gamma ray reflection isnt really feasible. schemes attempting to reflect gammas require very oblique angles, and it’s tough to guarantee of obliqueness from a bin of waste

    #13015
    Avatardelt0r
    Member

    The best shielding is the 1/r^2 law. In other words don’t get close. But most of the gamma emitters are not long lived. Decades IIRC.

    #13098
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    Check out this website regarding Fukushima:

    http://fairewinds.org/uncategorized/fukushima-daiichi-hard-clean

    Scary situation.

    #13332
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    Any comments about this post on Fukushima radiation effects?

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/15-1

    #13347
    AvatarJoeviocoe
    Member

    rashidas wrote: Any comments about this post on Fukushima radiation effects?

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/15-1

    Any links to a credible, independent, scientific paper?

    That blog only references other blogs.
    There are a lot of specific claims regarding numbers of affected and confirmed cancer diagnoses… but no proper citing.

    FYI:
    Wordpress is NOT a credible source for anything.

    We have to be scientific and thorough… or else we will fall into the “Cancer Clusters” hoax/scare all over again.

    #13368
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    How is this for links to the Fukushima situation: http://fukushimaupdate.com/

    #13369
    AvatarJoeviocoe
    Member

    rashidas wrote: How is this for links to the Fukushima situation: http://fukushimaupdate.com/

    Very professional looking. But…

    Took me 3.7 seconds to scroll down to the bottom to find,
    “POWERED BY WORDPRESS AND WPCRUNCHY”

    It is still, just a blog written by ONE person, with zero scientific credulity rehashing the same unfounded theories

    #13385
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant
    #13386
    AvatarJoeviocoe
    Member

    rashidas wrote: Another scary Fukushima story: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/07/leak-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-threatens-dangerous-meltdown/

    Not really all that scary… just more technical issues at a Power Plant that has already suffered from 3 reactors melting down…
    … not a word about “cancer”. So it really doesn’t lend any credibility to the blogs you’ve been posting.

    #13391
    AvatarKeithPickering
    Participant

    rashidas wrote: Any comments about this post on Fukushima radiation effects?

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/15-1

    FUD on a massive scale. After the accident, they screened the thyroids of every child they could find in Fukushima Prefecture and found a lot of benign cysts. But since nobody had ever screened children’s thyroids before, they had no idea whether that was unusual or not.

    When they later screen kids in areas far from Fukushima, they found an even greater percentage of cysts than in the Fukushima kids.

    Equating benign cysts with cancer is not just false, it’s a damned lie.

    For a complete overview, including links, see The Hiroshima Syndrome’s coverage:
    http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-child-thyroid-issue.html

    #13397
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    Here are two links for peer-reviewed journal articles on Fukushima radioactive pollution episodes:

    http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/2039/2013/bgd-10-2039-2013.pdf

    http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/3577/2013/bgd-10-3577-2013.pdf

    Most of the news regarding the Fukushima disaster is available at this website:

    http://fukushimaupdate.com/

    The negative effects of this disaster will make fusion research and development more difficult since the public may confuse fusion with nucelar fission.

    #13405
    AvatarJoeviocoe
    Member

    rashidas wrote: Here are two links for peer-reviewed journal articles on Fukushima radioactive pollution episodes:

    http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/2039/2013/bgd-10-2039-2013.pdf

    Most of the news regarding the Fukushima disaster is available at this website:

    http://fukushimaupdate.com/
    .

    The biogeosciences site does indeed present good information… but NOT ONE MENTION of cancer or rates of cancer. Increased Strontium in the sea water does not necessarily mean more cancer… and certainly does NOT mean the cancer clusters on the scale that is suggested by opinion blogs.

    And NO… fukushimaupdate.com site is NOT NEWS… but Opinion and Pseudoscience.

    So you cannot just post them together to give your theory of cancer clusters any credibility.

    #13479
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.