Are we overly worried about Radiation?

"Fukushima was not the scale of Chernobyl"
Its a misconception in thinking that the Fukushima tragedy has already occurred (in the past tense.)
The worst case scenario for Fukushima is many thousand fold times worse than Chernobyl.
Its not over yet.They havent stabilized anything.
When a meltdown is the worst case scenario,its absurd to be complacent.
BTW Chernobyl could have been a many thousand fold worse disaster.But for the heroics of those who drained water from the site.Thus preventing a massive steam explosion.

 

Radiation is no problem.
Its all overblown.
But an innocuous gas ,that actually makes plants thrive ,is what we need to FEAR.

 

Yep

 

In the past decade, how many accidents have there been that resulted in the release of radioactive material over a 10 mile area? 5 mile? a mile? one block?

Current carbon emissions have a far more global effect than an individual nuclear accident. One of its biggest sources is coal. Which also releases other, directly damaging stuff like mercury and radioactive isotopes. Stuff that's released everyday, nonaccidently.

 

Your knowledge of history is as lacking as your scientific knowledge. With Chernobyl, there were several explosions: there is evidence that there was a lot of steam that was ejected from all the coolant that was flashed to steam when the rods became stuck and shattered. Fukushima was not (and is not) able to be "many thousand fold times worse then Chernobyl". The Chernobyl reactor was still online when the accident occured. The Fukushima reactors were shut down during the earthquake. Also, the Chernobyl facilities were more likely to have explosions be able to go up into the atmosphere. Radiation levels were measured throughout the world, but *surprise* the significant levels were confined to the Belarus area. The Fukushima accident was more a focus on confining radiation: workers and firefighters at Chernobyl were focused on containing a meltdown.

 

Can anyone compare radiation effects between Fukushima event and atmospheric nuclear weapon tests held in 1950's-1960's?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing]Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site]Nevada National Security Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Ken@Japan


Because of concerns about worldwide fallout levels, the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty"]Partial Test Ban Treaty[/ame] was signed in 1963. Above are the per capita [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid"]thyroid[/ame] doses (in rads) in the continental United States resulting from all exposure routes from all atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site"]Nevada Test Site[/ame] from 1951-1962.

 

Im not saying its going to get worse.
But sh!t happens and this isnt over.
Meltdown?Recriticality?
Meltdown fears at Fukushima, radiation spreads - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

Ummmm...did you read the last 3 sentences of your article?

"He says this could lead to more radiation releases but it would not be "the end of the world".
"Recriticality does not mean that the reactor is going to blow up," he said.
"It may be something really local. We might not even see it if it happens."

 

I think now time starts for the destruction through natural calamities. Like this earth quake in Japan, then tsumani and then Neuclear Reactor... But we should be more attentive rather than thinking about these things.

 

I would say... No we are not overly worried about radiation. The author of the article states:

Firstly, healthy tissue is exposed to radiation isn't particularly desired. And the actual dosage of radiation to the tumor is much larger than the surrounding healthy tissue. It's acceptable to do this because, well, the benefit of removing the tumor outweighs the risk of damaging the healthy tissue.

Spreading out the treatments isn't only to allow cells to repair. Actually, the best reason for multiple treatments is because cell death only occurs during mitosis, and since there can be different turnover rates, you have to treat more than once in order to kill the entire tumor.

The author also doesn't point out that there are different types of radiation. Effective dosage to your body can be different. Not to also mention that in nuclear medicine, radiation doses are given in such a manner than vital organs won't be exposed to radiation.

Cell death isn't the only thing to look out for. In radiation therapy you can have a relapse of cancer due to the radiation of healthy tissue. These take years to develop, up to 20 years.

And then lastly, your mucosa lining in your nose and mouth.. pretty much all of your GI tract is most susceptible to radiation. Not only does it have a high cell turnover rate which makes it easier for cells to be damaged, but it doesn't block out alpha particles like your skin can (which is the most damaging type of radiation). So... even though the water is 'only' 4 times more radioactive than normal... I don't think I'd drink it.

 

what about cancer?
a lot of the "background"radiation today is not accounted for from natural cause but human result.
cancer also takes some time. you also dont drop dead from long cancer caused by exhaust from a car.
but that exhaust air can be cleaned and wil not last but how do you clean and protect against or solve radiotion for a normal human day to day life.

and what about current radiotion levels compared to a periode without 442 nuclear plants today

jus what a wanted to say
if a reported starts to write a paper with figures then at first downt believe
its not a expert on the matter.

in a car your in control but in a plane or radiation problem your not
you can not brake and just get out... thats what is scary

 

Shit does indeed happen, but it is limited by physics. Take that cute little warty toad sitting in your garden. If all of his lighter molecules suddenly fuse, you're going to have an explosion that will destroy your entire neighborhood. Are we worried about that? No. Why not? Because it can't happen. The physics are all wrong for spontaneous fusion of a toad.

Likewise with the meltdown in Japan. It's ugly. It's dangerous. It will do a lot a damage to the area, but it lacks the necessary components to produce a Chernobyl type of disaster. There are people who understand these sorts of events. We can't predict exactly how it will play out, but we do know the limits of what is possible.

Tom

 

At Fukushima Dianchi, 3 reactors were on for the tsunami and 3 were off. One of the 'offs' has issues with its fuel rod storage pond leaking. Cracked int he quake they reckon.

I fully expect more radiological releases, ideally not on a much larger scale than do-date. But most of the isotopes are going to stay onsite. There is no adequate source of energy to accomplish otherwise.

Worst case is that this IAEA class 5 accident gets upgraded to a 6. Chernobyl was a 7. Chelyabinsk was the only 6 so far if memory serves.

Seems like no one here has linked the XKCD rad chart yet:

xkcd

the chart (from a site better known for its cartoons) seems to me not as error ridden as the humble author suggests.

Tha exposure from sleeping next to somebody is the potassium 40 isotope. Just like in a banana.

I put my AWARE (TM) radiation monitor on a bottle of potassium chloride and background counts increase 4X. Students love it.

Which means, of course, that your potassium iodide radiation-safety pills are themselves radioactive. There you go...

 

Yes I read that.
Do you ever consider the unexpected?
Do you ever anticipate possibilities outside of the norm?
You mean to tell me when fission is occurring and the vessel has been breached there is ZERO chance of a massive explosion?
Not even a .01% chance?
Bull.

 

Zero chance of a nuclear explosion. This is the wrong type of fuel for that. There can certainly be a steam explosion, or another hydrogen gas explosion, but those are relativity low energy events. Likewise, these reactors lack the graphite that burned in Chernobyl.

Tom

 

What are the chances of anouther earthquake leaking much higher radiation into the ocean? How about some more of that plutonium spilling out. The odds of more earth quakes are good btw. Do you attribute the thousands with cancer, the 24000 year half life that needs another containment seal at Chernobyl already, no birds, part of the damage, or do we only count these with coal? Should their be a nuclear power plant within 40 miles of NYC or on a fault line in California? People under estimate the possibility of remote events. After the last disaster they said a melt down wouldn't happen.

Then we act like coal is the only alternative to nuclear. What are the odds that that windmill or combined cycle gas power plant melts down? Do we really think the carbon from that new gas power plant has as much of a possibility of disaster? If so why will no one but governments provide insurance for these nuclear plants? Who is going to guarantee the spent fuel doesn't get put in a dirty bomb? I'll tell you, no one can do that.

 

I suspect the "what about me?" mentality generates a lot of this fear. We had multiple nuclear tests in the American Southwest in the 50's. No one freaked out about those and I would guess they spread a lot more radiation than Fukushima. Let's not forget the multiple tests at Bikini Atoll as well. I think we should be expressing our concern for the Japanese people instead of worrying about this Boggy Man crossing the Ocean.

 

The chance of additional leaks is 100%. Radioactive material continues to leak from the site in Japan, and almost certainly a lot more of it will end up in the ocean. Obviously this is bad. Most of the damage will be to the immediate area, which is good news for the rest of the world, but cold comfort to those in Japan.

As for the rest of your comments, they appear to be anti-nuclear diatribe. This is consistent with the topic of this thread, which questions whether people have an irrational fear of radiation.

Tom