Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Nuclear reactors in the news - accurate reporting? - Page 10

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by vaughn on March 28, 2011, 10:50 pm
 


I cordially invite you to provide a scientific reference for that.

It would be much easier to find a scientific reference that estimates how much
lifespan the effluent from coal plants costs us.

Vaughn

 



Posted by daestrom on March 28, 2011, 11:04 pm
 
On 3/28/2011 18:03 PM, T. Keating wrote:

Utter nonsense.  So far the amount of radiatioactive nuclides that have
reached the US are far, far less than what is found in one shipment of
bananas from south america.

Where do you get this information?  Any citation?

daestrom

Posted by Neon John on March 29, 2011, 3:28 pm
 wrote:


Sure, no problem.

Go here:
http://epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-data-map.html

Let's take a west cost monitoring station for example.  I picked
Fresno because it's in the middle of the state

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

As the headline notes, the detected levels are many orders of
magnitude below levels of concern.  This is more a demonstration of
the radiochemist's capabilities than anything.

As they note, the beta data is so  noisy as to be meaningless.  The
gamma readings certainly look the same from one side of the quake line
to the other.  Analyzing the actual numbers, I imagine that they are
just barely statistically significant.  That is, they can just barely
be distinguished from normal background.

Or take a look at Knoxville, the closest station to me.

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

Nothing on the beta chart which probably indicates that the instrument
is out of order.

The gamma chart is quite interesting.  On average the levels reported
in all energy ranges are slightly lower several days after the quake.
The spike before the quake is probably an atmospheric inversion
holding radon and its daughters close to the ground.  Or maybe the
wind blew a little activity from nearby Oak Ridge in their direction.
In any event, the readings amount to nothing above background.

Or just for grins, you might want to look at the deployable gamma dose
monitor in California.

http://epa.gov/japan2011/rert/deployable-data/radnet-anaheim-exp-rate.html

Normal background.

OK, so there's some hard data for you.  Do you have the background or
training to understand it?  Not fit with your agenda?  That's probably
the reason that you're so hostile toward those of us who work(ed) in
the industry and specialize in this stuff.

John


Posted by Jim Wilkins on March 30, 2011, 4:50 pm
 
Here's the data for San Francisco.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/radnet-sanfrancisco-bg.html



Posted by vaughn on March 30, 2011, 6:31 pm
 

More unsupported utter nonsense from Keating.  It seems that when Keating finds
data that doesn't support his preconceived notions, he just invents whatever
explanation works for him, then posts it as fact.

Hey Keating.  While we are at it, you never did get around to telling us where
you got the information that prompted the following statement from you: ["The
meltdown in Japan probably just removed a couple years of lifespan  from people
who live in North America."]

For the third time: Please point us to the scientific source where you got that
information about the two years loss of lifespan..

Thanks
Vaughn




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