Fukushima Radiation Levels At 'Unimaginable' Levels

[JSt0rm]

I create art for a living. Im in the clear as far as assholes go. Regardless of my posting here

 

[crashtech]

Engineers are famous for their lack of emotional intelligence. For being smart there's a really high population of dumb fucks among them. Nuclear energy is the height of stupidity, requires massive government subsidization because private sources of capital aren't stupid enough to fund it, nobody wants the waste anywhere near them, and alternative energy technology makes infinitely more sense. Don't go into the field. You will just become a proponent of the dark side.

The French would beg to disagree, they draw 39% of their power from clean nuclear, and have mastered the art of reprocessing waste so well that they generate only a minuscule amount that can't be reused.

Hopefully we will not need nuclear at some point in the future, but for now, especially if predictions of future warming are to be considered credible, nuclear is one of the only ways to provide base load generation with a minimal carbon footprint.

 

[Moonbeam]

The French would beg to disagree, they draw 39% of their power from clean nuclear, and have mastered the art of reprocessing waste so well that they generate only a minuscule amount that can't be reused.

Hopefully we will not need nuclear at some point in the future, but for now, especially if predictions of future warming are to be considered credible, nuclear is one of the only ways to provide base load generation with a minimal carbon footprint.

Right: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/energy-environment/france-nuclear-energy-areva.html?_r=0

 

[crashtech]

Right: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/energy-environment/france-nuclear-energy-areva.html?_r=0

No technology is without its problems, that's for sure. I'll just accept your rebuttal without posting numerous articles about refinery explosions, pipeline leaks, coal seam fires, etc. It's a risk benefit analysis that, contrary to what you seemed to be saying about emotional intelligence, should be made dispassionately and without fear. I believe you have posted before about the wrong paths fear can lead people down, odd that you of all people want to revert to that state of fear when it suits your own conceptions about the world.

All that said, I agree that nuclear can be pretty scary. Is the threat of continued massive CO2 emissions more or less scary? I can't judge it.

 

[norseamd]

Right: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/energy-environment/france-nuclear-energy-areva.html?_r=0

https://www.iter.org/

 

[FIVR]

I find this not concerning, and I live directly beside a nuclear power plant. So, like Homer Simpson, I know what I'm talking about when I say that this radiation stuff isn't as dangerous as liberals would have you believe.

 

[JSt0rm]

I find this not concerning, and I live directly beside a nuclear power plant. So, like Homer Simpson, I know what I'm talking about when I say that this radiation stuff isn't as dangerous as liberals would have you believe.

Homer eats 24 donuts a day too.

 

[OverVolt]

There was actually no shielding other than the sarcophagus and distance. The thing about Chernobyl is that despite the extreme severity of the incident, the number of deaths is, I believe, measured in the low hundreds. That might seem cavalier to say, but if you look at stats for the fossil fuel industry, nuclear is actually much, much safer. Hard numbers seem a bit hard to come by, but from what I can tell, they aren't sure if ANY of the casualties associated with the Fukushima disaster were caused by radiation exposure. Similarly to Three Mile Island, the hysteria surrounding the event is a bigger monster than the actual accident. Not to say Fukushima isn't an extremely grave and difficult situation, but the risk to people not associated with the cleanup has been radically overstated.

Nah, I'm of the totally opposite opinion.

How many world wide muscle cancers are going to be chalked up to random chance? When you look out at decades and tally the epidemiological load of cancer and such, these things probably kill millions before their time. If all this extra background radioactive contamination cumulatively reduces everyone's lifespan by 0.5yrs, it has cost 3.5 billion years of human life globally. Thats how I think about it.

The acute exposure risk is low, but radioactive cesium isn't supposed to be out in the wild, period. Organic life is not equipped to deal with alot of these isotopes. Over millions of years the whole reason everyone's body dumps potassium in favor of sodium as an electrolyte is because of the radioactivity of potassium. Radioactive isotopes of cesium simply should not exist on this mature of a planet. And every vertebrate on the planet will absorb the radioactive cesium and use it in place of calcium in muscle tissue. Where it will sit day after day, bombarding the same cells over and over, being a tax on your immune system, aging you prematurely.

You're going to anticipate life expectancy to cap out, which it pretty much has lately.

 

[crashtech]

Life in general is very well equipped to deal with chronic low level radiation exposure, and many humans who were exposed to high levels of radiation went on to live long healthy lives, while others not exposed at all die young from cancer. It's a very non-deterministic thing. There's even some evidence that low levels of exposure end up having a protective effect, reasons as yet unknown.

 

[Ichinisan]

Nah, I'm of the totally opposite opinion.

How many world wide muscle cancers are going to be chalked up to random chance? When you look out at decades and tally the epidemiological load of cancer and such, these things probably kill millions before their time. If all this extra background radioactive contamination cumulatively reduces everyone's lifespan by 0.5yrs, it has cost 3.5 billion years of human life globally. Thats how I think about it.

The acute exposure risk is low, but radioactive cesium isn't supposed to be out in the wild, period. Organic life is not equipped to deal with alot of these isotopes. Over millions of years the whole reason everyone's body dumps potassium in favor of sodium as an electrolyte is because of the radioactivity of potassium. Radioactive isotopes of cesium simply should not exist on this mature of a planet. And every vertebrate on the planet will absorb the radioactive cesium and use it in place of calcium in muscle tissue. Where it will sit day after day, bombarding the same cells over and over, being a tax on your immune system, aging you prematurely.

You're going to anticipate life expectancy to cap out, which it pretty much has lately.

Where do they get the cesium from?

 

[EduCat]

Where do they get the cesium from?

?? Its a byproduct of fission.

:edit: Strontium 90 gets stored in your bones when you ingest it. 3 generations. If you were a grandfather, you'd worry about your __________.

 

[crashtech]

Where do they get the cesium from?

Cs-137 is the most problematic isotope, it's a fission product of U-235 reactor fuel.

 

[EduCat]

Look at all those tanks filled with water. They are probably just storing for drinking purposes or to fill up Fukushima residents' new complimentary swimming pools.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/13/is-it-safe-to-dump-fukushima-waste-into-the-sea

Tepco says it has 'filtered' the bad stuff, and if you read the comments many are stating that Tritium is a-ok to release into the ocean. Others argue the water is definitely 'heavy' after going through an uncontrolled core, and thus toxic af. The tanks were leaking last time I checked, that was years ago.

 

[WelshBloke]

There was actually no shielding other than the sarcophagus and distance. The thing about Chernobyl is that despite the extreme severity of the incident, the number of deaths is, I believe, measured in the low hundreds. That might seem cavalier to say, but if you look at stats for the fossil fuel industry, nuclear is actually much, much safer. Hard numbers seem a bit hard to come by, but from what I can tell, they aren't sure if ANY of the casualties associated with the Fukushima disaster were caused by radiation exposure. Similarly to Three Mile Island, the hysteria surrounding the event is a bigger monster than the actual accident. Not to say Fukushima isn't an extremely grave and difficult situation, but the risk to people not associated with the cleanup has been radically overstated.

A hundred thousand people were permanently evacuated because of the Chernobyl disaster. I don't remember that happening with any other form of power generation.

 

[crashtech]

A hundred thousand people were permanently evacuated because of the Chernobyl disaster. I don't remember that happening with any other form of power generation.

With great power comes great responsibility. The accident at Chernobyl at its root was a product of the failed Soviet system, where design defects where swept under the rug in the name of expediency. In the case of Fukushima, it was a failure of imagination and perhaps willful ignorance of the consequences of placing the reactor where they did. Seismically active and densely populous countries like Japan may not be well suited for nuclear power in any case. These are expensive lessons, but again, the risk/benefit analysis should be done by those with more knowledge at their disposal then you or I. Also, materials science has caught up with the concept of walk-away safe reactors, I believe these deserve a chance, and more experimental reactors are needed to test new technologies. The holy grail of course is fusion, but until then, we will need base load generation to assist increased use of renewables. natural gas is fitting the bill fairly well as of now, but it's not exactly carbon neutral.

 

[WelshBloke]

The accident at Chernobyl at its root was a product of the failed Soviet system, where design defects where swept under the rug in the name of expediency.

Can you honestly say that that isn't the case to a certain extent everywhere?

 

[crashtech]

Can you honestly say that that isn't the case to a certain extent everywhere?

I'd like to think that in Western-style democracies, there's a greater level of accountability, but we're all human, so how could I disagree with "certain extent?" The problem here is that no one seems to be willing to live in the dark without all their modern conveniences. These conveniences therefore WILL be provided. At what cost? Given our present stage of development, it would seem that the cost is some type of contamination or pollution. I hope we find a way to move beyond this stage as rapidly as possible.

 

[EduCat]

I'd like to think that in Western-style democracies, there's a greater level of accountability, but we're all human, so how could I disagree with "certain extent?" The problem here is that no one seems to be willing to live in the dark without all their modern conveniences. These conveniences therefore WILL be provided. At what cost? Given our present stage of development, it would seem that the cost is some type of contamination or pollution. I hope we find a way to move beyond this stage as rapidly as possible.

Lot of philosophy hub bub youve been spewing at this point. Lets look at the facts as we know it. The accident already happened, the levels are high af and still rising in some places. They don't know wtf they are doing and really don't have a concrete plan for shit yet.

My question was should we be concerned? Debris has already hit the west coast so we know there is flow. Anyway lol

 

[crashtech]

Lot of philosophy hub bub youve been spewing at this point. Lets look at the facts as we know it. The accident already happened, the levels are high af and still rising in some places. They don't know wtf they are doing and really don't have a concrete plan for shit yet.

My question was should we be concerned? Debris has already hit the west coast so we know there is flow. Anyway lol

I'm finding a bit of irony in that your suggestion that my responses lack substance is followed by a post of notable vacuousness. Should we be worried? Who is "we?" The people who have to clean up that mess? Oh, hell yes. They're in deep excrement. The Japanese, particularly those in proximity to the plant, especially along the coast? Yes, they should be concerned, and insist on tests and safeguards. But "we" as in North Americans? Not so much. As mentioned, the ability of our bodies to tolerate low levels of ionizing radiation is well known and continues to be studied. It's a risk factor inherent in our modern way of life just like dioxin was and mercury continues to be. All this stuff is nasty indeed, but here we still are at our computers. We won't renounce it! So live with it.

 

[Ichinisan]

Lot of philosophy hub bub youve been spewing at this point. Lets look at the facts as we know it. The accident already happened, the levels are high af and still rising in some places. They don't know wtf they are doing and really don't have a concrete plan for shit yet.

My question was should we be concerned? Debris has already hit the west coast so we know there is flow. Anyway lol

In what places are the levels rising?

 

[Meghan54]

Over millions of years the whole reason everyone's body dumps potassium in favor of sodium as an electrolyte is because of the radioactivity of potassium.

Actually, quit ingesting potassium and see how long you really live. We, as a species, have never dumped potassium in favor of anything. Potassium is critical in our cells, esp. nerve, cardiac and other muscle cells, etc. Ever heard of the sodium/potassium pump? It sorta keeps potassium within our cells, on purpose. At higher concentrations than found outside the cell.

 

[EduCat]

In what places are the levels rising?

Dude cmon man. Are you deliberately being dense? Read the article. The reactor had the highest reading ever recorded since 2011, you can start there. They have discovered new leaks. Wooosh?

 

[jman19]

Dude cmon man. Are you deliberately being dense? Read the article. The reactor had the highest reading ever recorded since 2011, you can start there. They have discovered new leaks. Wooosh?

Higher readings =/= rising levels. You're assuming the measurements over time have been taken in an equal manner. They have not.

 

[EduCat]

Higher readings =/= rising levels. You're assuming the measurements over time have been taken in an equal manner. They have not.

Can you point out where in the article it talks about that or says there is a discrepancy on how the measurements have been taken? Youre arguing that 5 years ago there were much higher levels of radiation then, no? Not really a great argument tbh.

'The "unimaginable" radiation levels were assessed by the National Institute of Radiological Sciences.'

 

[Moonbeam]

No technology is without its problems, that's for sure. I'll just accept your rebuttal without posting numerous articles about refinery explosions, pipeline leaks, coal seam fires, etc. It's a risk benefit analysis that, contrary to what you seemed to be saying about emotional intelligence, should be made dispassionately and without fear. I believe you have posted before about the wrong paths fear can lead people down, odd that you of all people want to revert to that state of fear when it suits your own conceptions about the world.

All that said, I agree that nuclear can be pretty scary. Is the threat of continued massive CO2 emissions more or less scary? I can't judge it.

You make a number of convenient but wrong assumptions. I do not see traditional energy sources as the logical alternative to nuclear. I distinguish between rational assessment of risks and wide eyed ignorant fear of the unknown, Because I do not see traditional energy sources as the logical alternative to nuclear, but rather see renewable energy as the logical alternative, I do not need to ask myself whether CO2 or radiation are the greater rick. I don't want either risk.