Radiation Levels in Japan

Feb 2011
82
7
New Jersey, USA
#1
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/nuclear/pdf/monitor02_01.pdf *
(dose levels measured 1 meter above the ground)

*http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor02_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)
.
 
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#4
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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#5
So you two think that potential radiation exposure from nuclear disasters is not a problem? What are you trying to say exactly?
 
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#6
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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#7
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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#9
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.
 
Aug 2011
448
0
California
#10
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!!
 
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#11
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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#12
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.
 
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#13
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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#14
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.
 
Aug 2011
448
0
California
#15
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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#16
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.
 
Aug 2011
448
0
California
#17
That won't happen again.
You can't say that.........

Yes I can, I said:

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.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#18
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.
 
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#19
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.
 

Similar Discussions