Potassium Iodide as radiation protection for the thyroid

Boy, the "expert" in that article needs a refresher course on reactor basics. He keeps denying what actually may have happened. The one thing he keeps point out are all the cooling systems and techniques to keep the reactor cool. These are the systems incapacitated by the tsunami destroying the backup diesel generators. That's the problem, not the solution.

Then he mentions using "portable pumps" to keep the water flowing. Might as well pee on the reactor for all the effectiveness of replacing a set of 1000 horsepower diesel generators pumping water straight into the core with a few 10 horsepower fire pumps (to share between many reactors).

 

He's a nuclear scientist at MIT...what are your qualifications for being an "expert"? Nuclear physics are not my specialty (and it doesn't look like it's yours either). My understanding is that many modern nuclear facilities have the capability to force water in without pumps (due to tighter restrictions after Chernobyl). The MIT scientist isn't "denying what actually may have happened". He explains quite clearly that the main failsafe is flooding the reactor with seawater (he earlier mentions the hypothetical peak radiation of an incident).

 

Operating reactors for five years....after getting my degree in Quantum Physics.

 

So do you know what type of reactor, and what equipment is at the Fukushima plant?

 

Ummmm... when was the nuke plant in Japan built Bra... if it was before the nuke meltdown in the Russian reactor facility, your comment is worthless for the current problem.

I personally don't think they can get any more water in than they are because I think there is damage to the delivery systems of the water from whatever source... and they probably do not have working equipment on site because the earthquake/tsunami got to that stuff... it's true I am speculating, but there does appear to be a continuing cascade of dire events coming from the facility.

And the reason it may not be able to hold the seawater they have been flooding into the cores, is probably because the bottom of the "bottle" is cracked open and letting the water out before it can cover the core.

 

The reactors in question were built 1967-1970 ([ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant]Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]). Chernobyl occurred 26 April 1986 ([ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster]Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]). Just saying.

 

Well the wikipedia article does list when the reactors came online: 1970-1979. Even though it was built before Chernobyl, I suspect the Japanese were good about retrofitting failsafes to their plants. As is, I've heard there have been hydrogen explosions, there are some questions about how effective cooling reactors were while shutting down, and in the future, it will come to light as to how much radiation was emmited. I still don't see any way (or any evidence) that radiation from the Fukushima plant can reach the USA.

 

Google "Jet Stream" Bra... :thumb::nod:

 

The radiation won't reach the jet stream. Check out the link I've already posted Bra...:thumb::nod:

Possible Fukushima Nuclear Fallout Projections For the U.S. Based on Wind Patterns | Alexander Higgins Blog

 

General Electric Boiling Water Reactors. (I operated Westinghouse Pressurized water reactors.) The commercial reactors I'm most familiar with are the Port St. Lucie reactors (made by Combustion Engineering). They have almost the exact same setup for emergency power. These are very, very large diesel generators that are about 12-14 feet high and certainly weighed many tons. The power cables coming off the generator were as big as my arm.

When the "expert" talks about using "portable generators" for the same application, you can see the issue....he is clueless about real power plants...I'm not. The second comment is filling the plant with seawater. How does one do that without power? Buckets? With portable generators, they might be able to fill the building in a couple of weeks or so, if the structure is water tight...which I doubt.

 

Then why, in your first post, when you said there was a "slight" chance for harmful radiation to reach the US....you cited fission nuclear bomb tests?? :noidea:

That's the main issue I have: even looking at nuclear disasters of the past, that just ads evidence that there's no reason to raise hysteria that there can be harmful radiation that gets distributed that far. Even the controversial tests of the 50s were done much closer to home.

Well my understanding is that the pumpless facilities have the reactors below sea level: gravity is a pretty good constant that doesn't need electricity Now I've learned that Fukushima is an older plant, so it probably didn't have that luxury...admittedly

 

Yo Bra... did you read your link...

 

Yes....did YOU????!!!!!! The link says that the radiation hoax was a copy of the jet stream. Nuclear power plants have less half-life radiation then atomic bombs, but they are longer lasting. However, they do not have the same plumes that are able to get into the jet stream. Refer back to the radiation distribution maps of Chernobyl.

 

The nuclear reactor shutdown fine in this case but the electrical systems failed due to the now obvious reason that electricity and water don't mix.
Hence the passive cooling systems...

 

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spent nuke fuel pool may be boiling, further radiation leak feared
Spent nuke fuel pool may be boiling, further radiation leak feared | Kyodo News

 

Did the OP's doctor mention the side effects of potassium iodide?

Potassium iodide Side Effects | Drugs.com

 

In November of 1951, a nuclear test in Nevada of the "Buster-Jangle" series was tested. The main fallout occurred on the 8th of November in upstate New York (AEC Report-Now Declassified). That's rather unexpected that a specific area 1000's of miles away gets the main dump. There are few absolutes when dealing with nature and I'm just pointing out how nature can prove man wrong more than once. That does not mean I think the chances of contamination reaching the US to be significant, just that it's too early to state no possibility of any kind.

The best way to combat hysteria is with facts and truth. That requires avoiding both the exaggerated and dismissed threats. I would prefer to be a party to neither.

But now it should be clear that a reactor below sea level may have very severe problems with an earthquake/tsunami. So that approach may not be as safe as originally thought either. (Not to be interpreted that safe designs are impossible, just hard.)

Important-I have no issues with any of your comments. I do have an issue with the nuclear "expert" who should be taken to the woodshed.

 

The Chernobyl disaster was a horrendous accident for the territory of Belerus. I'm not saying that there will not be signs of harmful radiation in Japan. But, to put things simplistically, the Pacific ocean is 10 times the distance of even Chernobyl to Sweden (and there were no cases of radiation poisoning in Europe). I'm going to be surprised if there's any cases of any negligible radiation exposure in the US.

 

Well I have no idea if your issues are with a "simplistic" interview. Perhaps if you actually had a face to face with the "expert" you'd feel differently. As is, I'm glad we can have a civil discourse and not have issues with one another

My mom grew up in Oak Ridge, so she has stories of some "unofficial" radiation tests that were being done in the area (and probably still aren't officially de-classified). There were some serious bombs that were tested, and I understand that there are still some new light as to what effects happened here in the States. My point about that is that nuclear bombs dissipate in a much larger area then a reactor failure. Well, even though I think it would be way overblown to be concerned about Fukushima in the US....I have hope for the Japanese people, and will be interested in seeing what the findings are. As for whether a reactor should be deep underground....the Earth is a very destructive force: whether it's a structure above or below.

 

Dave Dave Dave...


Just because someone posted a copy of the jet stream and attributed it falsely to an official organization that DIDN'T actually put out the data... does NOT mean what is possible won't occur.

Please note... the data was posted over legitimate information about the northern jet stream... I am a pilot... I understand weather... and this data about it getting into the jet stream is real stuff Bra...