2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

mahen · Post by **mahen** » 24 Mar 2011 19:56

Mahen - I don't know what you mean by neutron transparent.. (pure water slows neutron.. act as a moderator.. see water is 90+% water anyway..)
Water is mixed with Boron (Shipments of tons of boron is being rushed from different places) just in case...

I assume the radioacitvity would pass through pure water..but be absorbed by minerals, . A very layman perception perhaps. I was also confusing cooling of spent rods and the core. Frankly i was hypothesizing a scenario where contamination/ radioactive elements in sw, being picked up by kuroshio, pumped onboard our Fresh water generating systems. We boil sw in a vacuum from exhaust heat from our main propulsion unit, cool it down using sw again. Condensed water is what we drink at sea. So the concern over the contamination of sw.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 19:57

shiv wrote:From the point of view of medical science, cancer needs to be looked at as a jigsaw puzzle which can be completed using 20 pieces, but there is a choice of 5 options for each of those 20 pieces. That means that there are 100 pieces of which only 20 are needed to complete the puzzle and cause the cancer. Different combinations of the 20 may work to cause cancer.

Radiation is only one of those 100 pieces. Nobody knows exactly why radiation may cause cancer. Nobody knows exactly why radiation fails to cause cancer in others. After a point medical science is shooting in the dark. They have found about 15 of the 100 pieces of jigsaw and have no clue about what is going on exactly.

As a boy I agonized over cancer because my mother underwent radiation for a non cancerous condition (It was fashionable in those days to use radiation for all sorts of rubbish). I worried for many years that my mother would die of leukaemia. She died of ripe old age. On the other hand - another person, close to me, underwent the same radiation treatment in his 30s and died 30 years later with an unusual manifestation of a cancer that happened to occur in the path of the radiation that was used. No one can be sure that it was the radiation that did it. He had been a a smoker for 40 years, but I and that man's descendants will die with the suspicion that it was the radiation that did it.

The rakshasa who causes cancer uses bullets of many calibers - ranging from 2.2 to 5.56 to 7.62 to 9 mm to 12.7, 23, 27, 30mm etc. Radiation is one of them. Nobody can predict whether a cancer will occur from just the single 30 mm or whether you need to take several hits from 2.2 or some other combination. Nobody knows if the 30 mm will blow off a leg but the man survives but another man dies after taking several hits from different but smaller calibers on the battle field.

Shivji - To add to you, the effects of radiation at lower level (say less than 100 rem) is even less known (even after 50 years of study)..Cancer due to smoking ..or >100 rem we have good models and data. I used the the term Ld50 dose etc.. For smaller amount of radiation we don't even know if it has effect (or negative effect)..Cancer rates on many places which has high background radiation is actually less..most likely because of other environmental factors.

After New Delhi C-60 Incident, I ran some calculations to decide what I will do if there was a dirty bomb which went off in my neighborhood. ... This may be OT here so .. let me put that in some other post.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 20:10

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote: The Banana dose garbage I see on the news is particularly foolish. K40 is naturally present and our bodies have developed ways to keep amounts of it under strict control.
Saar, banana may be foolish -- it was meant to be funny.

But, you Saar, have a prize-e-noble coming your way for this "strict control" discovery. Wow!! The body has developed a radioactivity sequestration mechanism? Have you published this in Nature yet? Patent it fast before someone reads BRF and gets a clue.

I am not asking you for links because that would negate the prize-e-noble criteria.

GuruPrabhu - Actually I can guess which website that part came from as I have seen it too. I really find it funny that a term bed (which I heard years ago and have used it but remained in a very small circle) suddenly became popular.. (do people read brf?) ..Then the rush to "explain" K part of K40 in banana..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2011 20:29

AmberG, One thing with your help we are seeing that preciseness helps in our dialog. And smileys and optshots dont help. Thanks for educating us. Atleast those who want to learn!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 21:10

chaanakya wrote:
do not have interest or even time to go through that article line by line.
This what scares ordinary people. When contra reports are dismissed on the ground of lack of interest or time just because they find it concluding against technical wisdom where much uncertainty exists.

FWIW Chaanakyaji, I did not dismiss it because it was "contra".. ( trust me, I did not have any "pro" number in my mind)... it was just that when one sees numbers like 850,000 and 100,000..After all, one does not have infinite time. .. Like the example I gave, if some one doubts about a report that there are about 800,000 raw agents in Karachi, would he be accused that he is "not reading that report line by line. just because it is "contra"? I hope you get my point.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2011 21:38

Amber G, I am glad Ramana is able to understand you, for me your last few posts are totally incoherent. I dont see what they have other than totally random attacks on other members who disagree with you.

To me you have no replies to the real issues raised and are just throwing random jargon around.

I will let you continue your party. Please feel free not to reply to this, because this is not a response to anything, just a overall observation lamenting my personal loss of being unable to match up to your standards.

Thank you.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2011 21:57

Latest reports on the plants from IAEA.

http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/table-su ... ch0600-utc

Now IAEA slides also carry "damage suspected" for containment integrity for reactor 2. IMVHO this is a very good sign, because the information which was already available to open media has official word behind it. This gives me hope that
1) The worries of cover-up will be lesser if the information between open sources is reconciled with official positions.
2) Hopefully it will be easier to convince people that things are indeed wrong and something needs to be done, and therefore it will be done.

Just the humble words of untutored types.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 22:01

Sanku wrote:Amber G, I am glad Ramana is able to understand you, for me your last few posts are totally incoherent. I dont see what they have other than totally random attacks on other members who disagree with you.
.

Thank you. It may make you happy that I am not at all surprised that, for you, my posts are incoherent. I hope it is not so for anybody else.

There have been no attacks, random or otherwise, at least from my side. I hope they don't come from other side too.

To me you have no replies to the real issues raised and are just throwing random jargon around.

For me you ..too. (Even for a simple question as "How many have actually died due to radiation at this NPP?)

I will let you continue your party

Thank you. Though, I was not aware that I need your permission of blessing. But if "let" means , not taking potshots .I thank you, from bottom of my heart.

...lamenting my personal loss of being unable to match up to your standards.

Sorry about that.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 22:15

mahen wrote: I assume the radioacitvity would pass through pure water..but be absorbed by minerals, . A very layman perception perhaps. I was also confusing cooling of spent rods and the core. Frankly i was hypothesizing a scenario where contamination/ radioactive elements in sw, being picked up by kuroshio, pumped onboard our Fresh water generating systems. We boil sw in a vacuum from exhaust heat from our main propulsion unit, cool it down using sw again. Condensed water is what we drink at sea. So the concern over the contamination of sw.

FWIW the answers are brief.. consult other sources for details. few points:

1. Water (or other material ), pure or otherwise, absorbs radiation. Complicated formula for various types (of radiation) but just to give an example, for gamma rays (that's why the fuel rods are submerged in water) 10 meter of water is similar to about 1/2 meter thick lead... (Something to keep in mind if you really need/build a shelter /smile/)

It does not absorb neutron (as effectively as say boron rod).

2. SW is more of a problem in chemical sense.. (for Zr rods etc).. which may effect the magnitude of meltdown etc.. (Bottom line - if it can be helped .. *all* water will be treated)

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Mar 2011 22:24

Sanku wrote:1) The worries of cover-up will be lesser if the information between open sources is reconciled with official positions.

It is very unlikely the Japanese would cover-up stuff. Though they have done so in the very recent past. This is too public and their media too intrusive.

The problem has been their consensus style of releasing info. If the group thinks that a particular piece of info is not important they often don't address it publicly. This causes all manner of feverish speculation and alarm. For instance, watch a nuclear reactor structure go poof is quite chilling. Yet they failed to address all the potential issues by dismissing it as a hydrogen explosion. They must have known that the spent fuel pools are now open to sky, also piping must have been damaged, all lighting was lost, there were no cameras installed to monitor status, etc.

This particular group think is what caused this tragedy. They knew Indonesia had experienced a 35m wave. They knew this side of Japan experienced 9.0 quakes, they knew their sea wall was only 15m or less, yet the group think was nothing bad could happen. Even now they resist suggestions from the outside world.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2011 22:41

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Sanku wrote:1) The worries of cover-up will be lesser if the information between open sources is reconciled with official positions.
It is very unlikely the Japanese would cover-up stuff. Though they have done so in the very recent past. This is too public and their media too intrusive.
.

Yes, I agree with your post. However, I think without international supervision, the Japanese will return to their past ways, just like you alluded to.

It is important for international pressure to ensure that a international team with multi-national composition is allowed to carry out full profiling of the concerned area.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 24 Mar 2011 23:08

mahen wrote:I assume the radioacitvity would pass through pure water..but be absorbed by minerals, . A very layman perception perhaps. I was also confusing cooling of spent rods and the core. Frankly i was hypothesizing a scenario where contamination/ radioactive elements in sw, being picked up by kuroshio, pumped onboard our Fresh water generating systems. We boil sw in a vacuum from exhaust heat from our main propulsion unit, cool it down using sw again. Condensed water is what we drink at sea. So the concern over the contamination of sw.

Mahen,

The water is de-mineralized in order to prolong the life of the plumbing. That's all. There is no nuclear physics reason. Minerals get deposited and may even cause corrosion.

Secondly, the water being poured in to cool the spent fuel is most certainly washing out some radioactivity with it into the sea. But there is no need to worry. The oceans are too large to have any significant change in radioactivity levels due to these contaminants.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Mar 2011 23:10

theo fidel... should the sea wall at marine drive in mumbai also be 35m high? afterall it is in front of the most expensive banks and other commercial space in India, including our most important stock exchange?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2011 23:11

Is it near r nuke power plant? Theo's concern is with radiation leakage. Not commercial losses.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Mar 2011 23:13

no, i think the concern logic is that if a tsunami can be of height x then the sea wall should be of height x+y. so the question is what is x? is x the largest ever tsunami that has ever happened anywhere? or is it something else?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2011 23:14

ramana wrote:Is it near r nuke power plant? Theo's concern is with radiation leakage. Not commercial losses.

Yes of course, any e-con-o-mist worth his salt will tell you that the money in the stock exchange is hot money.

========

Sorry for the pun, in good humor onlee.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 24 Mar 2011 23:14

BARC in Trombay is close to the coastline, albeit, in the bay so a tsunami may not reach there with full force.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2011 23:16

GuruPrabhu wrote: Secondly, the water being poured in to cool the spent fuel is most certainly washing out some radioactivity with it into the sea. But there is no need to worry. The oceans are too large to have any significant change in radioactivity levels due to these contaminants.

Damn and all this time, nuclear power folks were wasting tons of money by worry about spent fuel storage. They should have just dumped it into the seas.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 23:21

Sanku wrote:TEPCO officials speaking on behalf of TEPCO sponsored actions == transparency?

Jai ho.
<snip>

This brings up an excellent observation n^3 made when he noticed the utter silliness of some progressives here who complained about the IDRF helping one Indian institution of being very communal and being supportive of "hate"... their paper has something like..
(that institution is so communal that they teach little kids:

Ram-janmbhoomi is birth place of Rama

(Janmbhoomi , by definition means birthplace.)

If TEPCO officials ought not to speak on behalf of TEPCO.. who should speak on their behalf ?

Amit's comment about transparency from Japanese was right on mark... Any one who knows anything about radiation measurement will tell you that you simply can't fudge the data.

Hope that helps.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2011 23:23

mahen wrote:Why i am not sure it's being treated is that tonnes of water is required per minute to cool the overheating rods.

As per media reports its not being treated and being dumped without treatment. So yes the concern is valid. (Although some would not accept that data till ratified by IAEA, which is why it is critical to get IAEA to issue statements on the type questions you raised ASAP)

However the modeling of diffusion of contaminants from sea near the shore to open ocean will be quite tricky to get exactly correct. (The back of envelop "banana" calculations that are being carried out are to be trusted with GRAVE risk to life and limb since they are too simplistic to be remotely useful) It will need a full solver and a study of ocean currents etc.

Engineering rule of thumbs would be
1) Check if any sea current transit near the disaster site. If so stay away from those currents "down-stream" till matter is clear.
2) If no sea-currents stay at least as far as where the majority of US navy is from the disaster location (7th fleet elements)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 23:33

Sanku wrote:
GuruPrabhu wrote: Secondly, the water being poured in to cool the spent fuel is most certainly washing out some radioactivity with it into the sea. But there is no need to worry. The oceans are too large to have any significant change in radioactivity levels due to these contaminants.
Damn and all this time, nuclear power folks were wasting tons of money by worry about spent fuel storage. They should have just dumped it into the seas.

Sanku sir - How exactly your statement is helpful to this discussion?

If you do not understand please ask. If you have to contribute please do. But why these snide attacks?

I asked you a simple question (How many deaths? ) and you have not answered but now mocking someone who actually has made a positive contribution?

Seriously?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 24 Mar 2011 23:34

Sanku wrote:
GuruPrabhu wrote: Secondly, the water being poured in to cool the spent fuel is most certainly washing out some radioactivity with it into the sea. But there is no need to worry. The oceans are too large to have any significant change in radioactivity levels due to these contaminants.
Damn and all this time, nuclear power folks were wasting tons of money by worry about spent fuel storage. They should have just dumped it into the seas.

A deserving response to this post will get reported. You seem to get away with murder -- one liners, smilies, nonsense etc. Others get reported. Enjoy your status.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Mar 2011 23:53

GuruPrabhu wrote:
mahen wrote:I assume the radioacitvity would pass through pure water..but be absorbed by minerals, . A very layman perception perhaps. I was also confusing cooling of spent rods and the core. Frankly i was hypothesizing a scenario where contamination/ radioactive elements in sw, being picked up by kuroshio, pumped onboard our Fresh water generating systems. We boil sw in a vacuum from exhaust heat from our main propulsion unit, cool it down using sw again. Condensed water is what we drink at sea. So the concern over the contamination of sw.
Mahen,

The water is de-mineralized in order to prolong the life of the plumbing. That's all. There is no nuclear physics reason. Minerals get deposited and may even cause corrosion.

Secondly, the water being poured in to cool the spent fuel is most certainly washing out some radioactivity with it into the sea. But there is no need to worry. The oceans are too large to have any significant change in radioactivity levels due to these contaminants.

This is essentially correct. (That's what I meant about chemistry wrt to SW)
wrt to water which is in spent fuel rods - only nuclear related reason , is addition of boron (a neutron poison) and stuff. The worry is that rods may have gotten quite hot and may have lost Zr coating etc..and may have more radioactive fission products in water than normal

GP is also right about sea oceans being too large... daily fluctuation in cosmic rays will have more effect than Cs/I from the NPP.

Scientists don't know everything.. but that is not the same as they know nothing. In addition to back of the envelop calculation they also have super computer enabled model, labs ityadi ityadi. to validate those results.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Mar 2011 23:56

As far as the sea wall, if you know that it is likely to fail, you take steps to protect the facility against it. Such as putting the generators and pumping equipment on the roof. Having plans for long term isolation of the facility. Ensure a long term supply of fresh water. Having emergency drill simulations. The group think was the sea wall can not fail.

Also having a medium term plan to move out of the area.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:01

Amber G, have you stopped to consider, that perhaps you have a one way snide measuring meter? I.e. you make all sort of comments which to you appear factual but simple statements from some one else make you very touchy?

I think both you and GP have been extra-ordinarily snide to pretty much everyone here who has dared to put a point which went against yours, or worse demonstrated with public data that you have been wrong.

So I humbly submit, I am not being snide at all, only trying to reply in the same tone of voice that I hear from both of you, in hope that perhaps then I will get heard.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 00:03

Here is a good explanation of radiation, units employed to measure it, its impact and the controversies surrounding it.
http://www.llrc.org/agency/subtopic/kin ... nbusby.pdf
Though of posting few snippets but decided against it. 116 pages needs to be read in full to understand the jargons being posted here and limits being used with mathematical precision in relation to human health.

Here is the abstract of the sweedish study of 2006. It is paid copyrighted one so not posting in full. Only citation abstract.

Keywords:
caesium-137;ionising radiation;nuclear power;low dose;epidemiology;environment;background radiation;cancer;GIS;cohort
Abstract
Background
After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, as much as 5% of the released caesium-137 was deposited in Sweden due to a heavy rainfall 2 days after the event. A study of increased incidence of malignancies was initiated after the accident.

Methods
The cohort included 1,137,106 inhabitants who were 0–60 years old in 1986 and lived in 8 counties of Sweden with the highest fallout of caesium-137. With the dwelling coordinate, GIS-technique and a digital map on caesium-137, each individual was matched for the exposure. Adjustments were made for several potential confounding factors. During the follow-up 33,851 malignancies was recorded 1988–1999.

Results
Exposure categories were: 0–8 (reference), 9–23, 24–43, 44–66, 67–84, and ≥85 nGy/hr. The corresponding adjusted Mantel-Haenszel incidence rate ratios for total malignancies during follow-up amounted to 1.000, 0.997, 1.072, 1.114, 1.068, 1.125, respectively. The excess relative risk per 100 nGy/hr with the same adjustments and time period was 0.042 95% confidence limit 0.001;0.084. An excess for thyroid cancer or leukemia could not be ruled out.

Conclusion
Increased incidence of total malignancies possibly related to the fallout from the Chernobyl accident is seen.

This is what is contested hotly by many.

One point I would like to make here is that deaths related to nuclear accident ( attributed to it) are unlike train accident deaths. Some may die of accidents due to blast at plant or may not. Few might die of exposure beyond limits, while many would die later of various reasons .Scientific studies exists to show that those deaths are so removed that causative link with radiation is difficult to establish based on certain radiation risk models. On the contrary seperate body of Scientific studies exist which tend to link them

I was surprised to find that regulatory authorities revised minimum safe radiation limits ( many concepts are explained in detail in the link) based on emerging evidences which could not be refuted by established conventional wisdom.

the exposure levels permitted by policymakers have continuously been readjusted throughout the last 80 years as every new discovery both in science and in epidemiology has shown that radiation exposure is more dangerous than previously thought. This process of discovery continues today although the dose limits are stuck at their 1990 levels. This is because the current official radiation risk models have not incorporated the most recent discoveries since to do so would force a complete reappraisal of the current use of nuclear power and the historic harm done by releases of radioactivity in the past Contemporary radiation risk models are so inaccurate for internal exposures that even some official risk agencies (IRSN) have pointed this out: yet they continue to be employed by governments and used by polluters to justify their past and present behaviour. There is now sufficient scientific proof of this in peer reviewed publish literature.

The weight of scientific belief about the dangers from internal radiation began to change in the mid 1990s with interest on the increasing evidence from nuclear site clusters and Chernobyl effects which clearly showed that the contemporary risk models were somehow false by a very large amount. Between about 1996 and 2000, evidence began to emerge from the laboratory for genomic and bystander effects Since the then current ICRP model was based on genetic damage and a linear relation it was implicit by 2000 that this basis was completely incorrect. This, and various other epidemiological evidence (which had now to be re-assessed) led to the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters and the ‘Radiation Science Wars’ of the early 2000s. The critical impact of the 2003 report of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, and the clear demonstrations in epidemiological evidence from the Chernobyl; affected territories (infant leukem minisatellite mutations, cancer in Sweden, Belarus and Ukraine) that the ECRR predictions were close to what was seen was a turning point in a paradigm shift that continues today.

It is so clear to a rational audience that I have persuaded all of the courts or juries that I have given presentations to. It is only the biased scientists of the nuclear military project and the economic and military vested interests that continue to
support the conventional model. Part of the problem is that the area of radiation risk in not one area but many. Each expert or employee sees only part of the picture. The physicist sees the world as energy transfer and mathematics.

The epidemiologist sees the effects but doesn’t understand the physics and assumes absorbed dose is a real parameter, a given. This was the problem with the late Sir Richard Doll, who I spoke with about this. Doll based everything on absorbed dose and died believing that the Sellafield leukaemia cluster was not of radiological origin. The biochemist also assumes absorbed dose is meaningful but here we are approaching reality if we are prepared to think through the ionisations and their position on the target DNA.

I met very few experts in this field who see the whole picture; yet it is the whole picture that is necessary if one wishes to understand the issue. Each expert is an expert in one filed, and can pass the buck: the epidemiologist says that the cancers are there but they cant be due to radiation because the physicists say the dose is too low. The late Martin Gardner, the Sellafield epidemiologist, tried to get round the dose problem by assuming it was dose to the fathers sperm that was the trouble: he never questioned the paradigm, he never questioned is dose was a real thing. The physicists in their turn use dose: they invented it. They say that the Hiroshima studies show the cancers are only there when the dose is high, but they don’t see the chemistry, they don’t know the stuff gets inside you and binds to the DNA they aren’t interested in such messy stuff, you cant use mathematics there. No one asks the chemists because why would they? The chemists do chemistry? What do they know about dose? But if dose isn’t appropriate or real (and it isn’t) the whole house of cards collapses

The LSS were not begun until 1952. This was another flaw, since seven years of epidemiological data would be missing from the study and in addition, those selected into the study would have been healthy survivors: many of the victims of radiation would have died in the five years before the study began (Stewart and Kneale, 2000). It is clear from reports of Japanese scientists that there were many deaths and leukemias occurring in the irradiated cities in the interim period and studies of the increases in cancers in the cities using external control data give higher cancer yields than the LSS yields which effectively employed internal controls (Kusano 1953, Busby 1995, Busby 2006, Sawada 2009). Long before then America's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) urgently needed to regulate the growing nuclear industry. The AEC pressed the National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) to develop safety standards. An especial concern was the quantity of novel elements which, being alpha emitters, would present internal radiation hazards. Separate sub-committees addressed internal and external radiation. The external sub-committee completed its work quite quickly but the other was slowed down by the many complexities of internal contamination. The problem is that while physicists can tell you the ergs from any radioactive decay, they don't have much clue about where internal radioactivity goes inside the body, how long it stays there or what biological damage it's doing. Impatient with the delays, NCRP's Executive closed down the internal committee in 1951, and stretched the report of the external committee to cover internal radiation.

The problem in the court of scientific opinion (and indeed in a court of law) with cancer causation is that there is generally a time lag between cause and effect, and since there are many mutagenic causes, it is difficult to make a connection which is unassailable in logic. In the case of the Sellafield childrens’ leukemia (and other similar clusters) despite the fact that they lived near the most radioactively polluted site in Europe, and that radiation is the only known cause of childhood leukemia, it was argued that the ICRP Hiroshima model did not predict the risk and so it must have been something else.

Sorry for the long post, OT wrt title of the thread.

saip · Post by **saip** » 25 Mar 2011 00:04

If TEPCO officials ought not to speak on behalf of TEPCO.. who should speak on their behalf ?

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:05

Theo_Fidel wrote:As far as the sea wall, if you know that it is likely to fail, you take steps to protect the facility against it. Such as putting the generators and pumping equipment on the roof. Having plans for long term isolation of the facility. Ensure a long term supply of fresh water. Having emergency drill simulations. The group think was the sea wall can not fail.

Also having a medium term plan to move out of the area.

Well Kalpakkam survived a very similar tusnami, and that too when about 100 folks from the staff and their families lost their lives in immediate tusnami. A lot of it on the back of similar methods you mentioned.

I dont see why the suggestion that TEPCO was being less than sensible in choice, design and use of reactor & NPP, is so difficult to accept.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:06

saip wrote:
If TEPCO officials ought not to speak on behalf of TEPCO.. who should speak on their behalf ?
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

Thanks Saip, precisely said. TEPCO will be for TEPCO.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:10

Mahen would find this useful

http://au.news.yahoo.com/japan-tsunami/ ... led-plant/

Japan tests sea for radiation near crippled plant

Officials have acknowledged that some of the water spilled back to sea.

Kyodo news agency quoted plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) as saying levels of radioactive iodine-131 in sea-water samples near the plant on Monday were 126.7 times higher than the limit.

Levels of caesium-134 were 24.8 times higher and those of caesium-137 were 16.5 times higher, while a trace amount of cobalt 58 was detected, TEPCO said.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 Mar 2011 00:11

Sanku wrote:Well Kalpakkam survived a very similar tusnami,..

I wouldn't go that far. Kalpakkam Tsunami was 9-10 meters. Even then it was a close run thing. IIRC correctly the station was about 3 feet above or about 11 meters. So 3 more feet and we too would have been in quite a pickle.

Those sea readings are striking. IIRC that was the same thought over Mercury. The ocean is too big. No one says such casual comments any more. Very un-serious.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 00:19

Chaankya - Wrt to your long post, I hope you (and others who are interested) did notice the column for Rem (Or Sievert) and particularly paid attention to "Dose equivalent.. Biological effect... and stuff like for alpha rem/rad ratio is different.. etc. That's what I posted a few posts before (EM in REM).. ..

This is what my point about the radiation dose 1bed - which measures biological effect on human body rather than K in banana.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2011 00:20

Sanku< I thought you were not going to talk to AmberG!

How about in interests of peace you observe and not post for a while.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:22

Theo Sir, Kalpakkam was flooded, it survived because many critical parts of the station were on higher grounds. So they had already implemented some of the features you suggested for Fukushima. So while there is no fool proof situation, Kalpakkam was certainly better designed as a NPP.

(BC article for reference quoted earlier)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:23

ramana wrote:Sanku< I thought you were not going to talk to AmberG!

How about in interests of peace you observe and not post for a while.

Right no replies to Amber G, etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2011 00:24

Can you extend moratarium to others too?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 00:26

ramana wrote:Can you extend moratarium to others too?

Not fair.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 00:38

Amber G. wrote:Chaankya - Wrt to your long post, I hope you (and others who are interested) did notice the column for Rem (Or Sievert) and particularly paid attention to "Dose equivalent.. Biological effect... and stuff like for alpha rem/rad ratio is different.. etc. That's what I posted a few posts before (EM in REM).. ..

This is what my point about the radiation dose 1bed - which measures biological effect on human body rather than K in banana.

I suggest seriously that you read that article , much illustrative than all posts here. It indeed tell in much more detail about the radiation that we are talking here. I am sure you are resident physicist, but the author is no less.

Theo, you are right on the mark about Kalpakkam. We need not gloat about having survived tsunami. 35 mts tsunami would have destroyed things as far as Chengalpattu. Kalpakkam would have been in deep trouble.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 00:49

People should pay particular attention to reduction in limits by regulatory authorities , the graph and table showing the safe levels and its correlation with emergence of new epidemiological data. I hope you read that.

Besides, if one reads the paper, it discusses two radiation risk models ICRP and ECRR and its impact on scientific wisdom and regulatory efforts. Divergent predictability of radiation related mortality and its accuracy is also covered.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 Mar 2011 01:00

Theo_Fidel wrote: The ocean is too big. No one says such casual comments any more. Very un-serious.

Saar, why pass fatwa like "un-serious"? Get a pencil and paper, do the calculation and then decide on the seriousness. Simple as that. You will be pleasantly surprised and once again marvel at how large Avagadro's number is.