Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 166 of 175 (611964)
04-12-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by dronestar
04-12-2011 12:44 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.
Yet you still posted them as if they meant something. Curious.
Let me know when you come up with SOLID cancer numbers.
Since we both agree that "SOLID" cancer numbers are going to be impossible, perhaps we should focus on the numbers that are solid, like actual amounts of radiation released, and WHO-reported death tolls.
In addition to ignored information:
In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.
19 miles is more than 50% greater than 12. In what world is "more than half again as large" anything resembling similar?
Besides that, who cares? Evacuation areas and even exclusion zones are precautions. The only numbers that matter when discussing the severity of a nuclear disaster are the amount of radiation released and (more significantly) the death toll.
You seem to enjoy focusing on irrelevancies and data you know and acknowledge is suspect. Why is that, I wonder?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by dronestar, posted 04-12-2011 12:44 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by dronestar, posted 04-12-2011 3:18 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 169 by fearandloathing, posted 04-12-2011 3:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 167 of 175 (611986)
04-12-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:53 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Rahvin writes:
Yet you still posted them as if they meant something. Curious.
Because you weren't paying attention, I suppose you would find it curious. As Taq and I have already stated previously on this thread, all cancer related injuries and cancer related deaths from nuclear power would have to be speculative. How can anyone specifically know which specific cancer was caused by this or that and know how many specific years life expectancy was shortened because of it or will be shortened because of it? To show you equally SPECULATIVE examples I supplied concedingly dubious numbers.
Rahvin writes:
Since we both agree that "SOLID" cancer numbers are going to be impossible, . . .
Thanks for finally conceding that solid numbers for cancer deaths and cancer related illness from nuclear power is nearly impossible to ascertain, and thus the dangers/risks from nuclear power can never be fully described with "SOLID" numbers. However, if you would like, we can meet on this forum in 60 years and go over the revised data then. (If I live downwind from a similar Fukushima-designed nuclear plant still in operation in the US, you can recognize me by my head-sized goiter. Hey, at least it's not a death statistic, right?)
Rahvin writes:
19 miles is more than 50% greater than 12.
(+12 miles)
I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.
You wrote:
Rahvin writes:
Still not nearly comparable to Chernobyl.
"Not nearly comparable"? I disagree, +12 miles around Fukushima does compare to 19 miles around Chernobyl.
Rahvin writes:
Besides that, who cares? Evacuation areas and even exclusion zones are precautions.
Maybe the people who lived there all their life care. To a lesser extent, the billions of dollars lost in damages/abandonment matters.
Why do you only want to focus on death tolls? Why is that, I wonder?
Edited by dronester, : there>their

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:53 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 168 of 175 (611989)
04-12-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:09 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
The decision to raise the threat level was made after radiation of a total up to 630,000 terabequerels had been estimated at the stricken plant.
That would classify the crisis at level seven on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Ines).
It was not clear when that level had been reached. The level has subsequently dropped to less than one terabequerel an hour, reports said.
In comparison the Japanese government said the release from Chernobyl was 5.2 million terabecquerels.
This is a good measure of the total activity released, but it can also be misleading with regards to risk. Specific isotopes (e.g. Iodine-131) can become part of the body and do more harm than the same amount of radioactivity from a different isotope that passes through our digestive system or is excluded from our bodies. Given the ample warning before major failures I would suspect that the risk is much lower in this case than the straight comparison of Bq's between Fukushima and Chernobyl might indicate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:09 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by fearandloathing, posted 04-12-2011 3:55 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 171 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 4:51 PM Taq has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 169 of 175 (611990)
04-12-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:53 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
We cannot overlook the fact that the govt of Japan has reacted to this better than the soviets did. People have been evacuated faster.
I guess as years pass statistics might show a spike in certain types of cancers that could be interpreted as " above background levels". Saying for certain that they are from radiation may be little harder.
So far Chernobyl released 10x the radiation that Fukushima has, and the levels of radioactive fission products is not the same. Chernobyl's core was completely exposed. If the used fuel ponds were to become completely exposed then things might take a turn for worst.
I also cannot see Japan having a giant zone like around Chernobyl, I might be wrong, but I think they will clean it up if at all possible. Japan being a free country will have to handle this different than soviets did.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:53 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 170 of 175 (611993)
04-12-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Taq
04-12-2011 3:39 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
lol, I just said bout the same thing, I was writing my last msg while you were posting your msg, I agree competly. Japan is a free country and this benifits the people of Japan.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 3:39 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 171 of 175 (612000)
04-12-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Taq
04-12-2011 3:39 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
This is a good measure of the total activity released, but it can also be misleading with regards to risk. Specific isotopes (e.g. Iodine-131) can become part of the body and do more harm than the same amount of radioactivity from a different isotope that passes through our digestive system or is excluded from our bodies. Given the ample warning before major failures I would suspect that the risk is much lower in this case than the straight comparison of Bq's between Fukushima and Chernobyl might indicate.
More people lived closer to Chernobyl than to Fukushima as well.
The straight comparison of radiation emissions was given simply because that's the metric used for designating this a Level 7 incident. Once you pass a certain threshold of total radiation emission, you're at Level 7, that's that. Fukushima has passed that limit over time, while Chernobyl basically exploded and burned for a while in a very sudden emission of a lot more radiation all at once, blowing past that threshold like it was nothing.
But the point is that every statistic in which anyone actually has a real number indicates that the Fukushima disaster, while certainly a disaster, is not anywhere near the level of severity of Chernobyl.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 3:39 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 04-12-2011 5:22 PM Rahvin has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 172 of 175 (612009)
04-12-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 4:51 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
And Chernobyl, while a disaster, is really not that big a disaster. Life goes on in Kiev.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 4:51 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 5:47 PM jar has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 173 of 175 (612014)
04-12-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by jar
04-12-2011 5:22 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Indeed true. If we were to remember the discussions back at the nucelar power thread...
quote:
Coal — world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal — China 278
Coal — USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
If Fukushima doubled the total of all deaths attributed to nuclear power, it would still be the safest form of power generation.
Hey, does anybody remember that earthquake and tsunami Japan had about a month ago? They killed around 10,000 people.
Fukushima hasn't killed anyone so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 04-12-2011 5:22 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 174 of 175 (612282)
04-14-2011 1:54 PM


Documentary
I just watched a documentary titled Witness: Disaster in Japan on the National Geographic channel. Doesn't seem to be on-line yet anywhere, but I expect segments of it will show up on-line, but it's best watched in HD. There seems to be a lot of previously unseen footage. Here's a description from Witness Disaster in Japan with National Geographic:
Raman Media Network writes:
Premiering on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 10 p.m. ET/PT, just over a month after the disaster occurred, Witness: Disaster in Japan weaves together an array of video sources some rarely seen, and others shown in more depth to build a comprehensive one-hour special that exemplifies the sheer magnitude of the disaster in chronological order, starting with the earthquake’s first tremor through the devastation caused by the tsunami.
I expect it will be rebroadcast, get your TiVo's ready.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by fearandloathing, posted 04-16-2011 10:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 175 of 175 (612496)
04-16-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
04-14-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Documentary
Percy writes:
I just watched a documentary titled Witness: Disaster in Japan on the National Geographic channel. Doesn't seem to be on-line yet anywhere, but I expect segments of it will show up on-line, but it's best watched in HD. There seems to be a lot of previously unseen footage. Here's a description from Witness Disaster in Japan with National Geographic:
Raman Media Network writes:
Premiering on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 10 p.m. ET/PT, just over a month after the disaster occurred, Witness: Disaster in Japan weaves together an array of video sources some rarely seen, and others shown in more depth to build a comprehensive one-hour special that exemplifies the sheer magnitude of the disaster in chronological order, starting with the earthquake’s first tremor through the devastation caused by the tsunami.
I expect it will be rebroadcast, get your TiVo's ready.
--Percy
Is going to be run again Sunday 17th at 9pm EDT here.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 04-14-2011 1:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024