The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Current Events Latest news, current events, and headlines from around the world


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 4th, 2011, 02:03 PM   #1
Analyst
 
kowalskil's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 82

Radiation Levels in Japan

1) Those interested in recently (?) measured radiation levels (at different distances from the Fukushima reactors in Japan) should see:

*http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuc...nitor02_01.pdf *
(dose levels measured 1 meter above the ground)

*http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuc...nitor02_02.pdf
(dose levels measured 1 centimeter above the ground)

Note that the color code is explained near the lower left corner of each display. Radiation levels are expressed in micro-Sieverts per hour. [The 10 micro-sieverts, for example, is the same as 0.01 mSv, etc. And 10 micro-Sievert/hour is the same as 0.24 mSv/day, or 7.2 mSv/month.]

2) How significant are these levels? The effect of penetrating radiation on a person depends on the dose received. The common unit of dose is Sievert (Sv). Smaller doses are expressed in milliseverts (mSv) or microseveret.

A dose of 10 Sv will most likely results in death, within a day or two.
5 Sv would kill about 50% of exposed people.
2 Sv can also be fatal, especially without prompt treatment.

0.25 Sv = 250 mSv is the limit for emergency workers in life-saving operations.
0.10 Sv = 100 mSv dose is clearly linked to later cancer risks.
0.05 Sv = 50 mSv is the yearly limit for radiation workers.

0.004 Sv= 4 mSv typical yearly dose due to natural radiation (cosmic rays, etc).
0.003 Sv= 3 mSV typical dose from mammogram

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
kowalskil is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 05:23 AM   #2
Intern
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 13

Don't build nuclear power plants in earthquake prone areas.
Simbainoz is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 05:29 AM   #3
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Scare tactics.
France is 80% nuclear.
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 07:19 AM   #4
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Scare tactics.
France is 80% nuclear.
We agree on something! Seriously, the place was hit by a record earthquake, a massive tsunami and a national power outage all at once, what were the odds? The idea that Japan screwed up because they got hit by something inconceivable is just stupid.
David is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 12:23 PM   #5
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

So you two think that potential radiation exposure from nuclear disasters is not a problem? What are you trying to say exactly?
myp is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:01 PM   #6
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
So you two think that potential radiation exposure from nuclear disasters is not a problem? What are you trying to say exactly?
Cost/benefit. The odds of a meltdown are far lower then the odds of a failure at say a coal or oil plant while the energy produced is greater by several magnitudes and the long-term costs are significantly lower.
David is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:09 PM   #7
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Cost/benefit. The odds of a meltdown are far lower then the odds of a failure at say a coal or oil plant while the energy produced is greater by several magnitudes and the long-term costs are significantly lower.
The cost of a failure is also much, much higher

Cost-benefit analyses are great and there needs to be more of them, but that is what this whole debate is about anyway.
myp is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:10 PM   #8
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
The cost of a failure is also much, much higher

Cost-benefit analyses are great and there needs to be more of them, but that is what this whole debate is about anyway.
How many people have died?
David is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:13 PM   #9
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
How many people have died?
In the history of nuclear plants or in Japan? With radiation you must remember that it is not limited to people dying and even then, not only in the short run. Radiation can have long term impacts, increasing risk factors for cancer and diseases sometimes exponentially. It can even potentially have generational affects through potential mutations in DNA that get passed on. Mutations always happen, but radiation makes them much more common. Not always a bad thing, but it can be and at times it can be fatal.
myp is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:18 PM   #10
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
So you two think that potential radiation exposure from nuclear disasters is not a problem? What are you trying to say exactly?
I am saying people use scare tactics about nuclear energy.

How many people die in car accidents every year? Why aren't you banning cars? How many people die in plane accidents every year? Why aren't you banning planes?

There is risk in everything. There have actually been more deaths from windmill accidents than nuclear power plant accidents. Yes, that is a fact. GO GREEN!!
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:20 PM   #11
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
In the history of nuclear plants or in Japan? With radiation you must remember that it is not limited to people dying and even then, not only in the short run. Radiation can have long term impacts, increasing risk factors for cancer and diseases sometimes exponentially. It can even potentially have generational affects through potential mutations in DNA that get passed on. Mutations always happen, but radiation makes them much more common. Not always a bad thing, but it can be and at times it can be fatal.
With the radiation levels as high as they were some deaths should have been immediate. So how many have died? How many are currently hospitalized with radiation poisoning? As I said, this was the result of a freak accident, be glad it wasn't a natural gas (or really any other fossil fuel) plant or you'd of had mushroom clouds and the environment would be just as toxic as it is now with radiation.
David is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:26 PM   #12
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
With the radiation levels as high as they were some deaths should have been immediate. So how many have died? How many are currently hospitalized with radiation poisoning? As I said, this was the result of a freak accident, be glad it wasn't a natural gas (or really any other fossil fuel) plant or you'd of had mushroom clouds and the environment would be just as toxic as it is now with radiation.
A major nuclear plant explosion (which in this instance did not happen- see Chernobyl) is worse than oil or natural gas. Also, the radiation damage can be tremendous from a bad accident can be extremely bad and even make the area unlivable for years afterwards.

I believe nuclear energy needs to be given another look, but I understand and accept the tremendous risks that come with it which sometimes make it a bad choice.
myp is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:34 PM   #13
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
A major nuclear plant explosion (which in this instance did not happen- see Chernobyl) is worse than oil or natural gas. Also, the radiation damage can be tremendous from a bad accident can be extremely bad and even make the area unlivable for years afterwards.

I believe nuclear energy needs to be given another look, but I understand and accept the tremendous risks that come with it which sometimes make it a bad choice.
Alas, people still live in Chernobyl and the ruins of Pripyat are now an archaeological/eco-tourist attraction. Until Japan (hit by a Biblical disaster) Chernobyl was the only example of a nuke meltdown. Fact is nuke power has the better safety record.
David is offline  
Old September 7th, 2011, 01:44 PM   #14
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Alas, people still live in Chernobyl and the ruins of Pripyat are now an archaeological/eco-tourist attraction. Until Japan (hit by a Biblical disaster) Chernobyl was the only example of a nuke meltdown. Fact is nuke power has the better safety record.
Look I am not arguing against nuclear power, just saying that a nuclear disaster is generally MUCH (as in several orders of magnitude) worse than oil/gas/coal/wind.
myp is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 08:31 AM   #15
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
A major nuclear plant explosion (which in this instance did not happen- see Chernobyl) is worse than oil or natural gas. Also, the radiation damage can be tremendous from a bad accident can be extremely bad and even make the area unlivable for years afterwards.

I believe nuclear energy needs to be given another look, but I understand and accept the tremendous risks that come with it which sometimes make it a bad choice.
You are not taking into account the odds: When you add up all the Naval power plants on ships, and the thousands of civilian power plants around the world, all over the timespan of decades, you can only point to one real disaster - Chernobyl - and that disaster was mostly the fault of shabby, crappy, Soviet construction. That place was the Edsel of power plants. That won't happen again.
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 11:12 AM   #16
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
That won't happen again.
You can't say that. That's why there is a debate. And it almost did happen again in Japan. But also, you can't take the raw current frequency of disasters and apply it to a scenario where you have more nuclear power. As you build more nuclear power, you will also have more accidents simply because the chances increase. Just because there hasn't been a major disaster in a while, does not mean you won't have one again, especially if you make more and more plants.
myp is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 11:36 AM   #17
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
That won't happen again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
You can't say that.........

Yes I can, I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
You are not taking into account the odds: When you add up all the Naval power plants on ships, and the thousands of civilian power plants around the world, all over the timespan of decades, you can only point to one real disaster - Chernobyl - and that disaster was mostly the fault of shabby, crappy, Soviet construction. That place was the Edsel of power plants. That won't happen again.
I can safely say that shabby, crappy, Soviet construction won't happen again.
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 11:46 AM   #18
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

I understand construction methods are better, but ]risk is still there (albeit perhaps less than back then). Any engineer will tell you that. A proper cost-benefit analysis needs to be done in any situation, but as usual that can sometimes be hard to completely quantify.
myp is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 06:29 PM   #19
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,844

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
I understand construction methods are better, but ]risk is still there (albeit perhaps less than back then). Any engineer will tell you that. A proper cost-benefit analysis needs to be done in any situation, but as usual that can sometimes be hard to completely quantify.
How many nuke accidents have there been? How many fossil fuel accidents have there been? Nukes are safer then just about everything but wind and solar power.
David is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 06:31 PM   #20
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
How many nuke accidents have there been? How many fossil fuel accidents have there been? Nukes are safer then just about everything but wind and solar power.
http://www.politicalfray.com/showpos...9&postcount=16
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Tags
japan , levels , radiation



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WMO: Record atmospheric CO2 levels in 2011 myp Current Events 27 December 6th, 2012 12:03 PM
China and Japan heading for war? David Current Events 14 October 23rd, 2012 10:07 AM
9k Marines being withdrawn from Japan. David Current Events 4 April 27th, 2012 08:15 PM
Treasury freezes CEO pay at AIG, Ally, and GM at 2011 levels myp Current Events 1 April 6th, 2012 09:53 AM
Radiation:Fukushima reactors update kowalskil Current Events 4 December 30th, 2011 06:58 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.