Wow, Curious Yellow, shouldn't that have been in the rant thread?

Others seem to have dealt with the points raised so I'll just add that the last paragraph basically makes a nonsense out of all the preceding. If we are to use this nuclear tech as a bridge until the 'alternative' supplies come on with the capacity to feed the worlds energy demands then fine, let's do that, it's called Business As Usual. You were saying?

not sure if this has been posted here before or not, but it shows the dispersion from 11 March to now:

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_22mars.aspx

This shows how we will all be affected.

ConnyRaSk wrote:not sure if this has been posted here before or not, but it shows the dispersion from 11 March to now:

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_22mars.aspx

This shows how we will all be affected.

So most of us will be pretty much unaffected then.

The scale has a maximum of 1000 bq per cubic metre from what i can tell. (The minimum looks like it could be 0.00001bq per cubic metre). That is if max de l`echelle translates as maximum of scale and looking at the colour scale on the images ranging from max down to 100 millionth of max.

Those are mind blowingly small levels. For comparison 1 kg of granite comes in at about 1000 bq the same as 1kg of coffee. 1 kg of coal ash comes in at double that. 1 cubic metre of air in a European home in a region where there is naturally occurring radon exposes a person to up to 30,000 bq.

(source:Radiation and Life http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm Yes its from a site that represents the nuclear industry but its figures appear correct)

ConnyRaSk wrote:not sure if this has been posted here before or not, but it shows the dispersion from 11 March to now:

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_22mars.aspx

This shows how we will all be affected.

Well, that was very scary, what does it mean? Please explain.

ConnyRaSk wrote:not sure if this has been posted here before or not, but it shows the dispersion from 11 March to now:

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_22mars.aspx

This shows how we will all be affected.

Really? How will we all be affected, exactly?

Use a software modelling atmospheric circulation, start tracking from a given point (Fukushima), using some nasty looking colour (Brown? Eww! It must be poison!), and... OH SHIT WE WILL ALL DIE.

Look at the frigging scale. They are tracking "hot air", so to speak.

Never mind that, just be scared, ok?

They've discovered a special kind of plutonium now. One that poses no risk to human health.

Tokyo (CNN) -- Some plutonium found in soil on the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have come from its earthquake-damaged reactors, but it poses no human health risk, the plant's owners reported Monday.

The element was found in soil samples taken March 21-22 from five locations around the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company told CNN late Monday. The company said it was equivalent to the amounts that fell on Japan following aboveground nuclear weapons tests by other countries in past decades.

"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said. But it added, "Just in case, TEPCO will increase the monitoring of the nuclear plant grounds and the surrounding environment."

[irony]yeah, right[/sarcasm]

ConnyRaSk wrote::this: [irony]yeah, right[/sarcasm]

And SOME of it MAY actually come from a damaged reactor. I'm surprised they've admitted that much

michael^3 wrote:They've discovered a special kind of plutonium now. One that poses no risk to human health.

Tokyo (CNN) -- Some plutonium found in soil on the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have come from its earthquake-damaged reactors, but it poses no human health risk, the plant's owners reported Monday.

The element was found in soil samples taken March 21-22 from five locations around the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company told CNN late Monday. The company said it was equivalent to the amounts that fell on Japan following aboveground nuclear weapons tests by other countries in past decades.

"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said. But it added, "Just in case, TEPCO will increase the monitoring of the nuclear plant grounds and the surrounding environment."

What was the amount? Or are you claiming that any amount at all of Pu is dangerous to human health down to single atoms?

This is the issue, you claim something is dangerous with no numbers attached as if one atom of Pu is more dangerous than a burning oil refinery. Weird.

Maybe you are correct and there is dangerous levels of Pu in the ground, but you have not established that yet. In fact the piece you quoted says exactly the opposite yet you use it to make your point. I don't get it.

Onyx8 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:They've discovered a special kind of plutonium now. One that poses no risk to human health.

Tokyo (CNN) -- Some plutonium found in soil on the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have come from its earthquake-damaged reactors, but it poses no human health risk, the plant's owners reported Monday.

The element was found in soil samples taken March 21-22 from five locations around the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company told CNN late Monday. The company said it was equivalent to the amounts that fell on Japan following aboveground nuclear weapons tests by other countries in past decades.

"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said. But it added, "Just in case, TEPCO will increase the monitoring of the nuclear plant grounds and the surrounding environment."

What was the amount? Or are you claiming that any amount at all of Pu is dangerous to human health down to single atoms?

This is the issue, you claim something is dangerous with no numbers attached as if one atom of Pu is more dangerous than a burning oil refinery. Weird.

Maybe you are correct and there is dangerous levels of Pu in the ground, but you have not established that yet. In fact the piece you quoted says exactly the opposite yet you use it to make your point. I don't get it.

Ah never mind, it's just silly old me being worried about the second major nuclear disaster in 25 years. But judging from the tone of your posts, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Heck, even Chernobyl wasn't really all that. Because, and I quote you, the wildlife seems to be doing just fine over there.

I mean, there is absolutely nothing to worry about, right?

So in your mind it is absolutely the worst possible thing or it is no problem at all? Is there any middle ground do you think?

Perhaps you could point out where I say that there is absolutely nothing to worry about?

michael^3 wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:They've discovered a special kind of plutonium now. One that poses no risk to human health.

What was the amount? Or are you claiming that any amount at all of Pu is dangerous to human health down to single atoms?

This is the issue, you claim something is dangerous with no numbers attached as if one atom of Pu is more dangerous than a burning oil refinery. Weird.

Maybe you are correct and there is dangerous levels of Pu in the ground, but you have not established that yet. In fact the piece you quoted says exactly the opposite yet you use it to make your point. I don't get it.

Ah never mind, it's just silly old me being worried about the second major nuclear disaster in 25 years.

It's not a major nuclear disaster, it's a minor one. How can you, with any kind of perspective about other industrial accidents, call one in which not a single person has died and no serious threat to ongoing health has been established a "major disaster"?

It may turn in to a major disaster (although it looks like it probably won't). But on current evidence, it isn't. You seem to just be calling it that because it's nuclear, and like some others here you hold nuclear energy to a strangely higher level of judgment than other forms of industry - to the point where any leak of radiation is a "major disaster" regardless of the level.

But judging from the tone of your posts, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Heck, even Chernobyl wasn't really all that. Because, and I quote you, the wildlife seems to be doing just fine over there.

I mean, there is absolutely nothing to worry about, right?

He was making a perfectly reasonable point: that we can't even begin to say whether there is "anything to worry about" in the presence of plutonium in the ground, without specifying HOW MUCH of it there is. You seem instead to want to reduce it to a pre-judged decision to either (a) panic or (b) not care, about the existence of ANY plutonium.

That's just silly. There is radioactivity all over the place, emitted by all kinds of things both natural and artificial. Yes, amounts of it above a certain level can be dangerous or fatal. And yes, amounts of it below a certain level are completely harmless and part of everyday life. So without numbers, it means nothing. You seem to be working on the basis that if a large amount of something is very harmful, a small amount of it must be at least a bit harmful. This is a very common mistake people make about lots of things, and is easily disproved.

It's like saying that because we can be quickly burnt to death at 10,000 degrees, we should be worried about any existence of "heat".

Beatsong wrote:That's just silly. There is radioactivity all over the place, emitted by all kinds of things both natural and artificial. Yes, amounts of it above a certain level can be dangerous or fatal. And yes, amounts of it below a certain level are completely harmless and part of everyday life. So without numbers, it means nothing. You seem to be working on the basis that if a large amount of something is very harmful, a small amount of it must be at least a bit harmful.

With radioactivity that's exactly how it is, as far as I understand.

Beatsong wrote:It's not a major nuclear disaster, it's a minor one. How can you, with any kind of perspective about other industrial accidents, call one in which not a single person has died and no serious threat to ongoing health has been established a "major disaster"?

It may turn in to a major disaster (although it looks like it probably won't). But on current evidence, it isn't. You seem to just be calling it that because it's nuclear, and like some others here you hold nuclear energy to a strangely higher level of judgment than other forms of industry - to the point where any leak of radiation is a "major disaster" regardless of the level.

So how am I supposed to interpret the following then? More scaremongering from the New Scientist?

Japan's damaged nuclear plant in Fukushima has been emitting radioactive iodine and caesium at levels approaching those seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Austrian researchers have used a worldwide network of radiation detectors – designed to spot clandestine nuclear bomb tests – to show that iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73 per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster. The daily amount of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60 per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl.

While in the body the isotopes' radioactive emissions can do significant damage, mainly to DNA. Children who ingest iodine-131 can develop thyroid cancer 10 or more years later; adults seem relatively resistant. A study published in the US last week found that iodine-131 from Chernobyl is still causing new cases of thyroid cancer to appear at an undiminished rate in the most heavily affected regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... evels.html

michael^3 wrote:

Beatsong wrote:That's just silly. There is radioactivity all over the place, emitted by all kinds of things both natural and artificial. Yes, amounts of it above a certain level can be dangerous or fatal. And yes, amounts of it below a certain level are completely harmless and part of everyday life. So without numbers, it means nothing. You seem to be working on the basis that if a large amount of something is very harmful, a small amount of it must be at least a bit harmful.

With radioactivity that's exactly how it is, as far as I understand.

Then you understand incorrectly.

Do you have a smoke detector in your house?

Onyx8 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Beatsong wrote:That's just silly. There is radioactivity all over the place, emitted by all kinds of things both natural and artificial. Yes, amounts of it above a certain level can be dangerous or fatal. And yes, amounts of it below a certain level are completely harmless and part of everyday life. So without numbers, it means nothing. You seem to be working on the basis that if a large amount of something is very harmful, a small amount of it must be at least a bit harmful.

With radioactivity that's exactly how it is, as far as I understand.

Then you understand incorrectly.

Do you have a smoke detector in your house?

Because there's some radioactive stuff inside?

Jumbo wrote:The article though does make it clear that before even the slightest health risk was liable one would have to eat or drink vast quantities of the substances involved. Legal limits are set exceptionally low and government is rightly erring a long way on the side of caution.

I thought those limits were set by scientists acting in the best interest of public health. But if they're not to be taken *that* seriously, why not simply raise them? I suppose you would eat a tasty plate of spinach from Fukushima.

There is higher risk of health issues arising for other pollution due to the tsunami affecting a variety of buildings IMO.

michael^3 wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

With radioactivity that's exactly how it is, as far as I understand.

Then you understand incorrectly.

Do you have a smoke detector in your house?

Because there's some radioactive stuff inside?

That's correct, and it doesn't seem to have killed you yet, does it?