Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Japan Nuclear Crisis Part III


Recommended Posts

Actually, isn't the Sievert related to just rem? And another unit (the gray) is related to rad?

  • 1 gray (Gy) = 100 rad
  • 1 milligray (mGy) = 0.1 rad
  • 1 rad = 1 centigray (cGy, 10-2 gray)

1 sievert (Sv) = 100 rem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 770
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Actually, isn't the Sievert related to just rem? And another unit (the gray) is related to rad?

  • 1 gray (Gy) = 100 rad
  • 1 milligray (mGy) = 0.1 rad
  • 1 rad = 1 centigray (cGy, 10-2 gray)

1 sievert (Sv) = 100 rem.

yeah...the rem and sievert are the best to use since they apply quality factors for the type of radiation (radiation dose equivalent). The gray and the rad do not apply quality factors and are just the radiation absorbed dose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah...the rem and sievert are the best to use since they apply quality factors for the type of radiation (radiation dose equivalent). The gray and the rad do not apply quality factors and are just the radiation absorbed dose.

I feel like I'm on a game show... instead of know your cuts of beef... know your measurements of lethal radiation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neutron Beam Explanation: Now you're getting into particle physics...A 'neutron beam' is basically a neutral (uncharged) particle wave of neutrons that can be produced in several ways, one of those ways as fission within a reactor. Neutron beams can also occur in particle accelerators. But in this situation, this IS THE NUCLEAR REACTION which releases energy inside the reactor itself. Neutron releases (the nuclear reaction) are controlled of course by the rods - control rods - of either boron or cadmium. Punch a hole in that reactor or crack it open, and with live fission currently occurring, a 'beam' of neutrons forms as a particle wave and exits out the hole or opening. An energy beam outside the reactor is what they detected. Basically, the reactor is broke, they can't control the process with the rods, the reactor either cracked open or has open hole(s).

Translation: The reactor without the rods is out of control; they're spraying water on it as a Holy-Mary stopgap

temporary measure, attempting to control the release of neutrons (the nuclear reaction within the reactor) without the cooling system and the control rods normally in place to temper both those by-products. Those by-products would be neutrons and heat.

So someone claims. Radiation is still spewing out.....high energy protons...enough that at least 13 proton beams were detected. There is still a reaction occurring.

lol I'm pretty sure people would know if the control rods weren't inserted...the reactor would have been ****ed last week.

yeah, reactions still occur when the fuel is just sitting there...it doesn't mean it's critical. It's neutron beams...at least try to get the terminology correct.

Stop speaking for me and sticking words in my mouth, then restating what I said and being rude yourself. I didn't say anything about problems with control rod insertion, but maybe you've got a couple stuck up your butt. You really are a rude SOB faking everything you're reading on the side. Let me repeat for your weak mind: there is a crack or hole in the main reactor and neutrons and/or "neutron beams" have been spewing outside. The reactor is ****ed. Anything near it is ****ed. The water is ****ed. Getting it inside your boots is ****ed. This thing is spewing radiation all over the place and the radiation levels are seriously increasing; contamination has increased. Lots of people will die from this (and have already died), including workers at the plant. No --- don't expect the talking heads, management and PR people at the plant or the Gov. to tell you the reality of what's really happening. This is likely to be already be as bad as Chernobyl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop speaking for me and sticking words in my mouth, then restating what I said and being rude yourself. I didn't say anything about problems with control rod insertion, but maybe you've got a couple stuck up your butt. You really are a rude SOB faking everything you're reading on the side. Let me repeat for your weak mind: there is a crack or hole in the main reactor and neutrons and/or "neutron beams" have been spewing outside. The reactor is ****ed. Anything near it is ****ed. The water is ****ed. Getting it inside your boots is ****ed. This thing is spewing radiation all over the place and the radiation levels are seriously increasing; contamination has increased. Lots of people will die from this (and have already died), including workers at the plant. No --- don't expect the talking heads, management and PR people at the plant or the Gov. to tell you the reality of what's really happening. This is likely to be already be as bad as Chernobyl.

lighten up Bruce Banner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop speaking for me and sticking words in my mouth, then restating what I said and being rude yourself. I didn't say anything about problems with control rod insertion, but maybe you've got a couple stuck up your butt. You really are a rude SOB faking everything you're reading on the side. Let me repeat for your weak mind: there is a crack or hole in the main reactor and neutrons and/or "neutron beams" have been spewing outside. The reactor is ****ed. Anything near it is ****ed. The water is ****ed. Getting it inside your boots is ****ed. This thing is spewing radiation all over the place and the radiation levels are seriously increasing; contamination has increased. Lots of people will die from this (and have already died), including workers at the plant. No --- don't expect the talking heads, management and PR people at the plant or the Gov. to tell you the reality of what's really happening. This is likely to be already be as bad as Chernobyl.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop speaking for me and sticking words in my mouth, then restating what I said and being rude yourself. I didn't say anything about problems with control rod insertion, but maybe you've got a couple stuck up your butt. You really are a rude SOB faking everything you're reading on the side. Let me repeat for your weak mind: there is a crack or hole in the main reactor and neutrons and/or "neutron beams" have been spewing outside. The reactor is ****ed. Anything near it is ****ed. The water is ****ed. Getting it inside your boots is ****ed. This thing is spewing radiation all over the place and the radiation levels are seriously increasing; contamination has increased. Lots of people will die from this (and have already died), including workers at the plant. No --- don't expect the talking heads, management and PR people at the plant or the Gov. to tell you the reality of what's really happening. This is likely to be already be as bad as Chernobyl.

wait a minute dude...I corrected you saying that control rods aren't there...those are your words...just like the proton beam was your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beam still seems to imply somewhat focused to me. And a proton beam would be really similar to a neutron beam, except for the pesky positive charge.

I do have some nuclear experience, pre-college, and an engineering degree, not nuclear. A red tag probably has little to no knowledge of what is going on. Actually, I don't really know what is going on. I'm not even sure the engineers working for TEPCO and the contractors, or the workers inside know what is going on. But I'm thinking a BS degree gives someone a little bit of a head start in understanding the basics.

To brag a little, as a non-met, I think a BS degree (science, not bull*) gives me a slight advantage over the typical amateur in understanding meteorology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like TEPCO could have prevented the injuries to those three workers after all...

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T2

From the article:

On Saturday, the company's associate director Hideyuki Koyama acknowledged that this Thursday wasn't the first time that high radiation had been detected in pooled water at the plant.

Specifically, he said that tests of water found in the basement of the No. 1 reactor's turbine building on March 18 showed high levels of radiation. But that fact -- and the general sense that water accumulating in turbine and other buildings at the plant might be dangerously radioactive -- did not appear to resonate six days later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Info from another site:

Speaking of lack of data, if you haven't seen the official reports from NISA, they are here:

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/

Specifically, the "Plant Parameter" reports have a wealth of data:

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110326...10326002-3.pdf

If you understand plant construction and physics, these tell quite a story.

The first line is amount of water injection: 700 litres/minute, which equals ~1000 tonnes/day

The second line is water coverage over fuel rods (negative is uncovered)

Third line is reactor vessel pressure (anybody know why 2 & 3 are negative?)

Fifth line is primary containment vessel temperature (unit 1 is 200 degrees still!)

Next is DW/SC pressure. This is the interesting one. I assume DW is dry-well, and it shows that Nos 2 & 3 are at or close to 0.1Mpa (abs), which is of course atmospheric pressure at sea level. For some reason nobody in the press has caught the fact that since Tuesday both units 2 and 3 have apparently lost pressure, and TEPCO didn't feel like telling them I guess.

Unit 2's S/C (suppression chamber I assume) pressure is listed as "downscale", which means unreadable. Unit 1's torus pressure is identical with the primary container vessel pressure, and Unit 3's torus pressure is oddly almost twice the drywell pressure.

CAMS is radiation monitoring and should be self-explanatory.

The next two lines list operating pressure and max pressure for the drywell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree 100%. It's like asking a biologist the weather forecast next week.

It is somewhat terrible to put fake bullcrap limits of learning upon a biologist. An educated person can

learn as deeply as they are motivated.

Certainly Nick is authoritative about the behavior of the reactor-generated

nuclear waste in the ambient airmass as well as distribution of such waste in surrounding ocean currents.

Back on subject, air around the reactors is cleaner and the seawater is spiking with radiation,

suggesting that efforts to contain the uncontrolled activity of the control rods is at least partially

effective since the airborne radiation levels are being abated.

A toxic leak of radioactive water is poorly controlled or not controlled. Engineers will figure out how to correct the faults.

Air quality over the US is effectively trendless, unaffected, and not responding to the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, it seems that radiation burns of the reactor workers is owing to the fact that they do not want to listen to detector alarms and do not want to cease their good efforts.

http://www.tepco.co....1103250e.html

Looking here: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110326-2-2.pdf

it can be noted that the problems are being addressed one at a time. The end of the World does not seem imminent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this L.A. Times article this morning:

Ocean currents will disperse radiation particles and so it will be very diluted by the time it gets consumed by fish and seaweed," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, a senior official from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

I have several questions about this statement:

1) What radiation particles? Radioactive iodine? Cessium? And does it matter?

2) What does Mr. Nishiyama know about ocean currents? Is he conferring with oceanographers?

3) What does he know about absorption rates in seaweed?

4) What does he know about fish eating habits? Is he speaking of all fish? Herbivores? Predatory fish? Is, is he conferring with an ichthyologist?

5) By accounting for dispersion and dilution of particles, he is effectively stating that the source of the radiation has been identified and eliminated. What then is source?

My skeptical side says to be wary whenever someone uses language of dilution/dispersion to dismiss concerns. Can anyone provide arguments supporting Mr. Nishiyama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this L.A. Times article this morning:

I have several questions about this statement:

1) What radiation particles? Radioactive iodine? Cessium? And does it matter?

2) What does Mr. Nishiyama know about ocean currents? Is he conferring with oceanographers?

3) What does he know about absorption rates in seaweed?

4) What does he know about fish eating habits? Is he speaking of all fish? Herbivores? Predatory fish? Is, is he conferring with an ichthyologist?

5) By accounting for dispersion and dilution of particles, he is effectively stating that the source of the radiation has been identified and eliminated. What then is source?

My skeptical side says to be wary whenever someone uses language of dilution/dispersion to dismiss concerns. Can anyone provide arguments supporting Mr. Nishiyama?

It ends up concentrated in the top of the food chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...