Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Nuclear reactors in the news - accurate reporting? - Page 12

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Neon John on March 29, 2011, 11:06 pm
 
wrote:



Yeah, we've know that for oh, a week now.  So what?  Flooding the
reactor building basement has taken care of cooling the melted fuel.
It's not going anywhere.


Actually according to the IAEA's daily activity reports, the radiation
levels around the plant have stabilized.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

That stands to reason since the primary source of the close-in
radiation field are the xenon and krypton noble gas isotopes.  They
escape early, are dispersed by the wind and with the exception of
Kr-85, decay in days.


What nonsensical gobbledygook.


Hmm, IAEA estimates that 94% of the I and Cs inventory and all the
noble gas inventory of Chernobyl was released.  Additionally, normally
solid isotopes and actual fuel particles were aerosolized and released
because of the continuing criticality and graphite fire.


Situation looks pretty much under control to me.  The only significant
short term problem that I see is what to do with the water flooding
the turbine building basements.  Pumping it into the turbine
condensers is only a partial solution.  I imagine that they'll set up
a mobile demineralization similar to TMI's EPICOR to remove nuclides
from the water before dumping it into the ocean.


So you believe in the no threshold dose theory, eh?  You're certainly
in the minority.  Few radiation protection professionals so believe.

Since you believe that any radiation is bad, you must be terrified of
the couple of REM your body doses itself from naturally occurring
isotopes each year.  Better quit eating anything with potassium in it.


Really?  The EPA says something slightly different.  How about going
here

http://epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-miami-bg.html

and pointing out to us where any "wave" of fallout is.  That beta
curve in particular looks REALLY menacing, what with its plunge toward
zero and all.

Really?  Which isotopes would that be?

I have just one other question for you and I truly hope that  you'll
take the time to answer.  This is something that I've wondered about
for years.  Does it hurt to be that stupid and gullible?  I mean, is
there any pain involved?

John
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com

Posted by T. Keating on March 30, 2011, 1:37 am
 


Except there is just enough fission to keep this going for a
long...long time. (neutron beams detected, expect more in the future.)
)  


The IAEA is just another propaganda organization which exists to
promote commercial N-power.

It's only UN mandate is to check for compliance with non-proliferation
treaties.   If their are no commercial reactors, their organization
ceases to exist.  Thus their motivation is obvious..
 

Huh??  What was the age of Chernobyl #4 at time of meltdown..

The age of Fukushima reactors??

Look it up dumbo..  

It seams you lack a fundamental understanding of physics, chemistry,
and biology.


Chemically, and biologically, noble gas is wayyy down on the list for
bio accumulation, non-chemically reactive, ideal gas law mixing
distributes through out the atmosphere in all three dimensions, while
most biological entities live out their life at the air/surface
boundary.  (dilution.)    

Bio accumulator  Iodine-131, short half life, inventory levels off
after half a year of full power operation.   Likewise, once outside
the reactor it mostly disappears in a similar time frame.

Meanwhile bio-acculumators.  Cesium-137, Stronium-90 keep on
accumulating at ever increasing levels over the fission lifespan  of
the fuel rods.   Total production (internal + spent fuel) will have
been maximised at decomissioning.  

-------

As for any estimates from IAEA about Chernobyl failed experiment,  I
would throw them away.   They are not functional scientists, instead
they are biased towards down playing the effects, which are very
extensive. Even worse, when faced with the true facts, (NTD,
non-cancer effects, birth defects, genetic damage, etc), they still
won't come clean.   That totally rules them out as a reliable
information source.  

-----

Meanwhile, radioactive isotopes that substitute for atoms used in
biological processes are far more dangerous.    They are still killing
today and will remain dangerous for  another 500 years..

Even worse, every now and then, events at the air/soil boundry layer
periodically disturb food chain isotopes location and allow
re-emission into atmosphere environment. (wildfire, flood, decay,
consumption, etc).   This setting up a whole new cycle a death and
mutation.

-----

Radiation exposure from a point source, is inverse square of distance,
except when the distance is zero (internal).  Thus bio accumulating
internal emitters are far more dangerous to people, than nearly any
other external radiation source.

If you can't or don't want to understand these fundamental concepts
then you're just wasting everybodies time.

Posted by T. Keating on March 30, 2011, 1:59 am
 

Except there is just enough fission to keep this going for a
long...long time. (neutron beams detected, expect more in the future.)
)  


The IAEA is just another propaganda organization which exists to
promote commercial N-power.

It's only UN mandate is to check for compliance with non-proliferation
treaties.   If their are no commercial reactors, their organization
ceases to exist.  Thus their motivation is obvious..
 

Huh??  What was the age of Chernobyl #4 at time of meltdown..

The age of Fukushima reactors??

Look it up dumbo..  

It seams you lack a fundamental understanding of physics, chemistry,
and biology.


Chemically, and biologically, noble gas is wayyy down on the list for
bio accumulation, non-chemically reactive, ideal gas law mixing
distributes through out the atmosphere in all three dimensions, while
most biological entities live out their life at the air/surface
boundary.  (dilution.)    

Bio accumulator  Iodine-131, short half life, inventory levels off
after half a year of full power operation.   Likewise, once outside
the reactor it mostly disappears in a similar time frame.

Meanwhile bio-acculumators.  Cesium-137, Stronium-90 keep on
accumulating at ever increasing levels over the fission lifespan  of
the fuel rods.   Total production (internal + spent fuel) will have
been maximised at decomissioning.  

-------

As for any estimates from IAEA about Chernobyl failed experiment,  I
would throw them away.   They are not functional scientists, instead
they are biased towards down playing the effects, which are very
extensive. Even worse, when faced with the true facts, (NTD,
non-cancer effects, birth defects, genetic damage, etc), they still
won't come clean.   That totally rules them out as a reliable
information source.  

-----

Meanwhile, radioactive isotopes that substitute for atoms used in
biological processes are far more dangerous.    They are still killing
today and will remain dangerous for  another 500 years..

Even worse, every now and then, events at the air/soil boundry layer
periodically disturb food chain isotopes location and allow
re-emission into atmosphere/environment. (Wildfire, flood, decay,
consumption, etc).   Thus. setting up a whole new cycle a death and
mutation.

-----

Radiation exposure from a point source, is inverse square of distance,
except when the distance is zero (internal).  Thus bio accumulating
internal emitters are far more dangerous to people, than nearly any
other external radiation source.

If you can't or don't want to understand these fundamental concepts
then you're just wasting everybodies time.

Posted by daestrom on March 31, 2011, 11:16 pm
 On 3/29/2011 16:47 PM, T. Keating wrote:

Utter nonsense.  The *suspected* breach of #2 containment is from what
may have been an H2 explosion inside the torus.  This is believed to
have cracked some welds on the steel torus structure.

No evidence of *molten corium* (a Severe Accident Management Guideline
term for a possible molten mass of fuel/clad/steel/concrete) breaching
the containment floor.

If by 'primary containment vessel' you mean the reactor pressure vessel,
then you should say this and not muddle the terms.  If you don't know
the difference, you shouldn't make such addled statements.


Another wholesale fabrication.  Some of the water *is* draining into the
ocean, and it is contaminated with some of the more volatile fission
products.  But 'whole-sale dumping' of the core is *not* being done.
For one thing, right now they can't *get* to the core, much less move it.


Just which 'food chain' radio-isotope are you referring to?  Can't be
I-131, there were only three reactors operating, not 50.


Another fabrication.  TEPCO has no MOX fuel in the spent fuel pool.  The
*first* load of MOX fuel was loaded last fall into #3.  There is no
other MOX fuel on site, not in spent fuel nor the new fuel vault.


http://books.google.com/books?id=g34tNlYOB3AC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=ukrainian+mortality+rate+before+chernobyl&source=bl&ots=O15UfQ1Va7&sig=j1bT3W8gvUron-9osUDCfcMSaio&hl=en&ei=HzuSTfmxGcTagQeDt6AZ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved  CoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ukrainian%20mortality%20rate%20before%20chernobyl&f=false

Problem with this statement is that you don't consider what isotopes are
being detected and review their half-lives.  To impact 'generations
beyond', you would have to be referring to some long-lived ones.  Which
long-lived ones have been detected?

Considering your loose treatment of other so-called 'facts', I don't
find any of your statements credible.

daestrom

Posted by Neon John on March 29, 2011, 10:38 pm
 Sorry about getting the attribution wrong.  Anyhoo, there's some hard
data for everyone. :-)

John


On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:50:02 -0400, "vaughn"


to


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread