The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:15 pm

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

Now, if you examine this chart, you will realize that even the highest levels of radiation from the meltdown in Japan are about 3/5 of the amount from a chest CT. Just more evidence that any time the media proclaims a crisis, you should automatically reduce the danger level about 5 tiers.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by The Cid » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:11 pm

I just can't believe that there are thousands and thousands of people who died in a real disaster that actually happened, and yet the news has spent the past two weeks panicking about a disaster that has not happened yet and does not have a body count anywhere close to the earthquake and tsunami. By all means, let's ignore the actual tragedy and talk about a hypothetical one.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44017
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by Deacon » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:02 pm

It's because people are stupid and pay attention to shiny things. Shiny things that could affect them. A bunch of Japanese people dying isn't nearly as big a deal as a sensationalist story about nuclear meltdown, both from a ratings standpoint and from a leftist pulpit standpoint.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:26 pm

Lucksi wrote:Now, if you examine that chart again, you´d see that the one day dose of living in villages 50 km from Fukushima is 1500 times that of a chest xray.
Do you need glasses? ~3.6 mSv < 5.8 mSv. In fact, one day at Fukushima is about the same as the average yearly dose. A lot, but provided you aren't stupid enough to go in without wearing some sort of protection, and don't loiter, not that dangerous.
And if you kept up with the news, you´d probably have heard that the radiation went up to 435 μSv PER HOUR near the plant and that isn`t near the reactor core as they put in for whatever reasons for Chernobyl.
Ok, so it went up to all of TWO Chest CTs per day. 10 mSv or so aren't all that high. If one would kindly look at this other chart you would see that the potential cancer risk is still higher from other sources, and that we have not yet reached radiation poisoning. You would also note, I hope, that the evacuation zone is far beyond where the measurements are being taken (the front gate of the facility), corresponding to a massive drop in radiation levels.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by collegestudent22 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:25 pm

Lucksi wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:
Lucksi wrote:Now, if you examine that chart again, you´d see that the one day dose of living in villages 50 km from Fukushima is 1500 times that of a chest xray.
Do you need glasses? ~3.6 mSv < 5.8 mSv. In fact, one day at Fukushima is about the same as the average yearly dose. A lot, but provided you aren't stupid enough to go in without wearing some sort of protection, and don't loiter, not that dangerous.
And right back at you with the glasses. X-ray is not a CT scan. I used the xray because that´s a lot more common to have somewhen in your life instead of a CT scan.
CT scans are X-rays. In fact, CT is short for X-ray Computed Tomography. A chest x-ray is a CT scan - that is what is required to get a 3-D representation off the x-rays. And about 72 million were performed in the US in 2007, with the demand only projected to have increased since then. I'd say it's pretty likely that you will get one if you have cancer or some other problem with your chest. A simple 2-D x-ray is not really all that useful for the chest (unless you break a rib or something) due to the organs being superimposed upon each other and difficult to differentiate.
Oh, and the radiation in at least one town 60km from the reactor is now 5.7 mSv PER HOUR. But that´s still not risky as long as you don´t actually live there.
Source? Because my sources tell me that it is only 5.7 uSv per hour, meaning you are off by a factor of 1000.
On Sunday, one measurement 58 kilometres from Fukushima registered 5.7 microsieverts per hour, the IAEA said in data provided to reporters.
And the point is not that it would not be dangerous to just hang out in irradiated areas, but that it is simple to deal with the issue. No one is within range of actual harm, due to evacuation, even if the radiation were to spread out from a total leak. The majority of the media is acting like you will get radiation sickness all the way in California from this thing. It's just irresponsible (and idiotic).
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by The Cid » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:42 pm

Meanwhile, the actual body count from the actual disaster that already actually happened has gone over 10,000, with another 17,000 or so still unaccounted for.

But hey. I understand. The biggest earthquake in recorded history, as well as a massive tsunami, hit one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Clearly, that sounds like the optimal time to argue about the merits and potential dangers of nuclear power.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44017
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by Deacon » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:32 pm

That's unnecessary, Cid. In fact, in your pouty sarcasm you actually said exactly the right thing.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by The Cid » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:55 pm

Sure, it's repeating myself, but I just don't understand the rush to form an opinion when the events at Fukushima have not finished unfolding. It seems asinine to argue about radiation and nuclear power when the smoke has not yet cleared. What's the need to play the "what if" game here? Whatever happens, shouldn't it happen before we assign meaning to it?
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by The Cid » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:26 pm

Lucksi wrote: Does that sound eerily familiar to what is up with reactor 3 at Fukushima at the moment?
I don't know, and if you're being honest you don't know either aside from what inferences you make from reports in the instant news cycle. I'm not saying there's nothing to see. I'm saying that we're talking about an event that has not yet wrapped up.

I feel like more information is needed--the information that we will get as this continues to unfold. Everything else is just guesswork. People can't say this is "nothing" because we don't yet know what this is. Likewise, I think people should not rush to alarm because they hear the word "nuclear."

We all want to play the nuclear physicist, but maybe letting cooler heads prevail is the answer for now, so we can use the information--whatever information we get--in vital discussions that obviously need to be had across the world about the risks and rewards of nuclear plants.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:57 am

Lucksi wrote: Do you think they evacuate the workers there -who have on protective clothing- for shit and giggles? That the firemen for example don´t even do their one hour shift of spraying water on it? That should tell you how high the danger is.
Yeah, it's dangerous right on top of the damn thing. Thanks, Major Lee Obvious.
You don´t think that in the last 40 years there have been some improvements or new insights/improvements on how those plants can be built?
Not really, because they have been effectively banned in the countries that actually care about things like "safety" and "public health". When you aren't building them, you can't really expect engineers to spend their time thinking about how they can be built safer. That, and the fact that these plants HAVE been improved over the years in terms of safety. It just isn't viable to tear the whole thing down and rebuild it for a minor improvement in safety. Most plants are built to withstand at least a 7.0 earthquake. That's something over 90% of all earthquakes each year.
And due to what natural desaster did Tschernobyl blow? Heck, even after the explosion, they still gave out the news that the broken reactor was still intact and just had to be cooled. Does that sound eerily familiar to what is up with reactor 3 at Fukushima at the moment?
No, mostly because the problem at Chernobyl wasn't even close to the same thing. Even the function of the reactor was different.
But if you look at the first chart from the comic, you see that there are chest x-rays at 20 μSv and chest CT scan at 5.8 mSv which is a hell of a difference.
The chest CT is a compilation of many x-rays taken to obtain a 3-D image, instead of a 2-D one. And the single x-ray value is meaningless, as the CT is deemed safe.
Why is a single CT scan over 5 times the maximum EPA limit thing anyway?
The EPA limit is for an entire year. Higher doses of radiation over a much shorter time isn't as dangerous as a lower level for a long time. But, even so, as the EPA has designated carbon dioxide as a "environmental hazard", I'll say they just make shit up.
We must have different limits as they also said that living in that town for 7 days exceeds the maximum yearly safety level on radiation.
And who the fuck sticks around an irradiated area for an entire week? My point is not that "radiation isn't dangerous derp". It is that the danger is overstated by the various media sources (even going so far as to claim that the radiation creates a danger across the Pacific fucking Ocean), mainly to give the impression that nuclear power isn't safe, despite the fact that these plants are super redundant and it requires a MAJOR natural disaster, like a 40 foot tsunami (the earthquake caused minimal damage to the plants itself), to cause such a problem.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by The Cid » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:53 pm

The measured and appropriate response to the nuclear crisis in Japan continues. Guess they won't be showing Godzilla in Europe anytime soon.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44017
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by Deacon » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:13 pm

Sigh. Good lord...
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:59 am

Nope. Can't even allude to the idea of such a thing existing if it happens in real life. :shifty:

And don't even think about making a joke about how Japan is getting irradiated by all kinds of science right now.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by The Cid » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:38 pm

Lucksi wrote:They are not showing the reruns of the entire episodes where someone gets irradiated at the plant for example.
What I can't figure out is whether they believe that would actually be inappropriate, or if they're simply afraid of the litigious.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The Real Danger from Nuclear Meltdown

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:51 pm

Except those are isolated readings, and may just be aberrations. The response is just nonsensical, though. Seriously? Banning shipments of beef because it is "contaminated"? Someone should learn that irradiated food doesn't become radioactive.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests