Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
smolt
Topic Author
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 12:11 am

Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:23 am

Hi, there.
Now I live in 200km south of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant which exploded in March 2011.
More than a coulple of years has passed since its most dangerous status but leaking of nuclear material such
as cesium 134, 137 and others still remains. Recently TEPCO has admitted contaminated underground water
is leaking to the Ocean.

As well there is no confidence that the troubled plant will never break again into the critical condition. None is
sure where melted-down fuelS (plural) are, and spent fuel rods still are placed inside the exploded plant.

About me, water serviced to my house is from the filtration plant which aquires water originated in the area so called
'hot spot'; Ce137 and 134 are still detected in the precipitated soil in the plant. I am not sure they can filter out
strontium 90 out of the water. I usually eat vegetables planted in the soil not completly free from contamination within 200km from the Fukushima. Also I eat sashimi of bonitos and tuna fihed in the Pacific from which certain amount of becquerels of cesiums is detected (within regulation).

It's not likely that my body is not perfectly free from contamination.

I'm not too pessimistic but want to hear that if you were me what would you do?

smolt
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:02 pm

Good question but difficult to answer.

Living at the Alps' foothills, I might be more exposed to radioactivity than you are, and frequent fliers are anyway. But I don't eat cesium-137 infected sashimi and don't drink strontium-90 polluted water (I hope). I'd guess being exposed to gamma radiation is different from eating or drinking alpha-ray and beta-ray emitters.

I for one would not so much worry about a sudden catastrophic breakdown of the reactor ruins but about continous exposition to harmful substances like cesium-137.

Hence, I'd try to get realistic numbers concerning the contamination I am exposed to as well as a couple of reliable references (not only one) telling me whether or not those numbers are within limits and then come to a conclusion.

[Edited 2013-08-01 12:12:03]
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:02 am

My question is not whether there are radioisotopes detectable, but whether you are getting a harmful radiation dose. Radioisotopes can be detected in minute quantities that pose no threat to life.

It could be that the radiation dose you are receiving is well below the background and is thus trivial.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4890
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:32 am

When it comes to radiation, authorities tend to be over cautious. I would have thought if the water/food sources you mentioned posed a threat then the authorities would have banned them by now.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:23 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
My question is not whether there are radioisotopes detectable, but whether you are getting a harmful radiation dose. Radioisotopes can be detected in minute quantities that pose no threat to life.

It could be that the radiation dose you are receiving is well below the background and is thus trivial.


It also raises the question of do you believe the LNT theory of radiation dose (Linear No Threshold) which holds that any radiation dose is harmful, or do you believe in the cut-off model, which holds that below a threshold, often quoted as 50 milli-Sieverts,there is no detectable damage -- in fact minute doses could be a good thing by stimulating cell growth.

In case no one had noticed, I support the latter theory.

Doc's point about background radiation is well taken. Granite, for example, is naturally radioactive due to thorium in the rock structure. It's at a low level, but it is measurable. Well water drawn from granite-strewn areas is measurably radioactive.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:00 am

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 3):
When it comes to radiation, authorities tend to be over cautious. I would have thought if the water/food sources you mentioned posed a threat then the authorities would have banned them by now.

Ahem, no and no. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, Japanese authorities have been all but over cautious. Many argue that the evacuation zone was much too small.

The European Food Safety Authority had raised residue levels of radioactivity for imported food from Japan - and backpaddled after the press found out.

I am really not in the possession of a tin-foil hat, and you can trust me on this: Should you ever apply for a job at a governmental food safety authority, always stress that maximum residue levels exist to provide legal certainty to the industry. Consumer protection, while important too, is often secondary. No kidding here.
I support the right to arm bears
 
photopilot
Posts: 3101
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:16 pm

What would you do? A very simple question that at it's most basic level has only two answers.

You either accept the radiation levels that you're possibly going to get by living/eating where you are, or you pack your belongings and move away to another place. I'm not minimizing the hassle of moving, possibly looking for a new job, lifestyle etc that a move results in. But if you stay, then from the sounds of it and to some level or other you're going to be exposed to some radiation and isotopes. Really only you can decided on the stay or leave equation based on your life.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8588
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:24 pm

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 3):
When it comes to radiation, authorities tend to be over cautious. I would have thought if the water/food sources you mentioned posed a threat then the authorities would have banned them by now.

When the sh!t hits the fan they will cover their behinds and try to tell people it's not as bad as they think. They put their reputation ahead of your safety.

On the other hand, when things are not quite so serious and the threats are much more understood, then yes, they will have a knee-jerk reaction to the point they are probably doing more harm than good.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:43 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
You either accept the radiation levels that you're possibly going to get by living/eating where you are, or you pack your belongings and move away to another place.

Exactly. We are all going to die of something so it´s not healthy to worry every single moment of your time about a situation you seem, for the most part, to have no control over.

But, if it is very stressful for you, the only option is to move.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:25 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 4):
It also raises the question of do you believe the LNT theory of radiation dose (Linear No Threshold) which holds that any radiation dose is harmful, or do you believe in the cut-off model, which holds that below a threshold, often quoted as 50 milli-Sieverts,there is no detectable damage -- in fact minute doses could be a good thing by stimulating cell growth.

The "cut-off" model is also known as hormesis, which suggests that low-dose radiation might stimulate DNA repair mechanisms more than required. The brief work I did on this hypothesis in grad school failed to support the theory.

However, the background dose (which varies based on location) *IS* safe because all life on earth evolved around it.

If the radioisotopes from Fukushima are giving locals an increase of 0.01% over the usual background, I would call that a non-issue. If it's 30%, then that might be an issue.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:43 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
The "cut-off" model is also known as hormesis, which suggests that low-dose radiation might stimulate DNA repair mechanisms more than required. The brief work I did on this hypothesis in grad school failed to support the theory.

However, the background dose (which varies based on location) *IS* safe because all life on earth evolved around it.

Hormesis is, though, a term more frequently used in toxicology studies, such as alcohol, arsenic, etc. There are references to "radiation hormesis" in the literature, conceded.

This may interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petkau_effect I knew Dr Petkau while I was working at Pinawa (1975-2001), in fact he was the site doctor. Very fond of prescribing pain killers for almost every complaint !

Your main point about background radiation not being a problem is, in the main, correct. There are places on the planet (Oklo, Gabon and the Deccan Plateau in India coming to mind), where the background radiation levels will trip a CANDU reactor on high health hazard warnings. People live in these places, and apparently have adapted to these levels.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:50 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Your main point about background radiation not being a problem is, in the main, correct. There are places on the planet (Oklo, Gabon and the Deccan Plateau in India coming to mind), where the background radiation levels will trip a CANDU reactor on high health hazard warnings. People live in these places, and apparently have adapted to these levels.

Not only that but Chernobyl has basically become a wildlife preserve and the animals are quite healthy.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Airstud
Posts: 4892
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:20 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
However, the background dose *IS* safe because all life on earth evolved around it.

One might argue that that proves it's unsafe.

  
Pancakes are delicious.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:35 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
Not only that but Chernobyl has basically become a wildlife preserve and the animals are quite healthy.

Yes, it's a large wildlife preserve, but mutations at the cellular level are being seen in birds at least. One interesting observation by those going into the forbidden zone is that the wolf population does not seem to have any fear of humans.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:39 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
One interesting observation by those going into the forbidden zone is that the wolf population does not seem to have any fear of humans.

Why would they? It's been several generations since most of them have seen one and the few that are there aren't around to trap or hunt them.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:51 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
Why would they? It's been several generations since most of them have seen one and the few that are there aren't around to trap or hunt them.

Interesting. I thought that after the years of depleting them, their fear of humans would now be instinctive. Who is this dangerous for? The wolves or the humans?
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:13 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 4):
Granite, for example, is naturally radioactive due to thorium in the rock structure. It's at a low level, but it is measurable. Well water drawn from granite-strewn areas is measurably radioactive.

So are granite countertops in people's kitchens.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:12 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 15):
Interesting. I thought that after the years of depleting them, their fear of humans would now be instinctive. Who is this dangerous for? The wolves or the humans?

I would have thought that, too, but apparently it isn't.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:05 am

Let me just talk, tangential to the topic, about some stuff about radiation and DNA damage.

Electron orbitals around nuclei are most stable when they are either empty, containing no electrons or when they are full, containing two electrons. Orbitals with one electron are very unstable and will tend to either give up or "steal" an electron from another molecule's filled orbitals. Molecules and atoms with these one-electron orbitals are called "radicals." Free oxygen is very good at forming radicals and good ole' O2 is actually a highly toxic substance. The presence of O2 in high amounts in mammalian cells means that mammals must have highly-developed DNA repair systems.

When free radicals formed by oxidation react with DNA they can either change the structure of the DNA or cause one of the two strands to break. This is OK because DNA is its own backup copy. A DNA repair enzyme comes and either repairs the break or removes the damaged strand and then a DNA polymerase enzyme complex comes along and makes a new strand from the naked remaining single strand. At any one time, an average human cell is managing about 100,000 oxidamages to its DNA. Given that the human genome is 3Gbp (giga base pairs) long, the chance that any two of those oxidamages will occur very near to each-other are extremely low.

With ionizing radiation, the picture is similar with one key detail different. A particle from a radiodecay event, be it an alpha particle (helium nucleus), beta particle (electron), or a high-energy photon (gamma/X-ray) makes a track through the cell. As it tracks through the cell, it knocks atoms off of molecules it passes creating a trail of radicals in very high concentration. If one of those tracks passes near the DNA, there will be a larger chance of multiple oxidamages occurring in the same part of the DNA. And when that happens, both strands may be broken very near to each-other, a so-called "double-strand break." Double strand breaks can be fatal to a cell because there is no backup copy. There are methods cells have of repairing double-strand breaks. Although the genome is very long, there are also a lot of cells (trillions in the human body). If in just one cell both copies of a gene that inhibits cell division get knocked out, that cell could become tumerous. If another hit knocks out some of the genes for DNA repair enzymes, that will help it become cancerous. The chances of this occurring in any once cell are miniscule, but the number of particles and the number of cells may be astronomical, so the chances of it happening overall becomes quite high with high doses of particles.

That said, we are exposed to ionizing radiation every second of every day. As you sit in your home reading this, cosmic rays are sleeting through your body at a rate of about 100 per second. The wood in your walls has some C14, which radiodecays and if you live with granite, that has even more radiation.

Some have pointed out that these radioisotopes are truly artificial. They cannot exist in this universe unless they are forged in the violence of a nuclear reactor. Once they do exist, they just as quickly (by the scale of cosmic time) vanish into stable isotopes. But the radiation that they give off is the same as radiation from natural radioisotopes. It's either alpha, beta, or gamma. So it becomes a question of dose, not a question of qualitative presence.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Airstud
Posts: 4892
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:18 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Electron orbitals around nuclei are most stable when they are either empty, containing no electrons or when they are full, containing two electrons. Orbitals with one electron are very unstable and will tend to either give up or "steal" an electron from another molecule's filled orbitals. Molecules and atoms with these one-electron orbitals are called "radicals." Free oxygen is very good at forming radicals and good ole' O2 is actually a highly toxic substance. The presence of O2 in high amounts in mammalian cells means that mammals must have highly-developed DNA repair systems.

When free radicals formed by oxidation react with DNA they can either change the structure of the DNA or cause one of the two strands to break. This is OK because DNA is its own backup copy. A DNA repair enzyme comes and either repairs the break or removes the damaged strand and then a DNA polymerase enzyme complex comes along and makes a new strand from the naked remaining single strand. At any one time, an average human cell is managing about 100,000 oxidamages to its DNA. Given that the human genome is 3Gbp (giga base pairs) long, the chance that any two of those oxidamages will occur very near to each-other are extremely low.

With ionizing radiation, the picture is similar with one key detail different. A particle from a radiodecay event, be it an alpha particle (helium nucleus), beta particle (electron), or a high-energy photon (gamma/X-ray) makes a track through the cell. As it tracks through the cell, it knocks atoms off of molecules it passes creating a trail of radicals in very high concentration. If one of those tracks passes near the DNA, there will be a larger chance of multiple oxidamages occurring in the same part of the DNA. And when that happens, both strands may be broken very near to each-other, a so-called "double-strand break." Double strand breaks can be fatal to a cell because there is no backup copy. There are methods cells have of repairing double-strand breaks. Although the genome is very long, there are also a lot of cells (trillions in the human body). If in just one cell both copies of a gene that inhibits cell division get knocked out, that cell could become tumerous. If another hit knocks out some of the genes for DNA repair enzymes, that will help it become cancerous. The chances of this occurring in any once cell are miniscule, but the number of particles and the number of cells may be astronomical, so the chances of it happening overall becomes quite high with high doses of particles.

That said, we are exposed to ionizing radiation every second of every day. As you sit in your home reading this, cosmic rays are sleeting through your body at a rate of about 100 per second. The wood in your walls has some C14, which radiodecays and if you live with granite, that has even more radiation.

Some have pointed out that these radioisotopes are truly artificial. They cannot exist in this universe unless they are forged in the violence of a nuclear reactor. Once they do exist, they just as quickly (by the scale of cosmic time) vanish into stable isotopes. But the radiation that they give off is the same as radiation from natural radioisotopes. It's either alpha, beta, or gamma. So it becomes a question of dose, not a question of qualitative presence.

Which, is what I said basically.

The thing I want to know is, are there ways of determining how much radiation is hanging around in you? I live in Minneapolis, which is within 50 miles of two (2) nuke power plants; and I've read that living within 50 miles of one (1) such power plant for a year doesn't expose you to quite as much radiation as on a nonstop flight from Los Angeles to New York. Still... if you can get labwork done to check your cholesterol and triglycerides n stuff, is there a way to find out where you're at, radiationwise? I don't like the idea of just waiting to see if I get cancer or something... yich.
Pancakes are delicious.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:37 pm

Quoting Airstud (Reply 19):
The thing I want to know is, are there ways of determining how much radiation is hanging around in you?

Get a geiger counter.

Several years ago, my employer, AECL,did a cancer study for employees vs the Canadian population, adjusted for age (since AECL employees were a little younger overall). Turns out that cancer rates for the employees were lower than the general population. And this is for an employee population that is frequently working in areas containing fissile material. My take on that is that AECL was taking a lot more care in tracking exposures than the health care system in general.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:41 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 19):
The thing I want to know is, are there ways of determining how much radiation is hanging around in you? I live in Minneapolis, which is within 50 miles of two (2) nuke power plants; and I've read that living within 50 miles of one (1) such power plant for a year doesn't expose you to quite as much radiation as on a nonstop flight from Los Angeles to New York. Still... if you can get labwork done to check your cholesterol and triglycerides n stuff, is there a way to find out where you're at, radiationwise? I don't like the idea of just waiting to see if I get cancer or something... yich.

I am not aware of a lab test that would test cumulative lifetime dose without having you wear a badge or other detector.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):
Get a geiger counter.

   I think one way to truly understand radiation is to get a geiger counter. You will quickly understand how trivial the radiation levels we're talking about are.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:44 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):
Get a geiger counter.

Not that I ever thought of buying one, but I was told the exact opposite. Unless you really know what your are doing, that thing will provide some wild data instead of information. Apparently, understanding a Geiger counter is not trivial.
I support the right to arm bears
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:49 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 16):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 4):
Granite, for example, is naturally radioactive due to thorium in the rock structure. It's at a low level, but it is measurable. Well water drawn from granite-strewn areas is measurably radioactive.

So are granite countertops in people's kitchens.

Not mention radon gas in people's basements. There is a minute amount of radium present in most concrete formulations, and radon is a direct daughter product. Absent proper ventilation, the radon can build up. So limit your ti me in the man-cave !  
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
smolt
Topic Author
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 12:11 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:34 pm

Thank you guys for being interested in this thread.

After the accident I bought a cheap geiger counter to make it possible to check outer radiation level.
I do not much rely on absolute read in a very low value of radiation this counter but I'm sure this will
make a substantial use in case that radiation level raise up to more than 5 time higher than usual.
In my circumstance this counter usually reads about 0.09-0.11 micro sievelts per hour in 60 seconds mode.
(averaged every second read) in 1 second mode, this reads like, 0.09, 0.15 0.11, 0.38 0.13 0.5 ...
Around where I live, it seems that this momental read never goes up in excess of 0.5.

To check if this counter works properly, I put close to this counter a very old lens of Pentax camera that contains much TRIUM on the surface. The value raised to 2, 3, 4.... and finally 8 micro sievelts an hour and alert sound began.

Then I went to Mizumoto park in eastern Tokyo that is said to be a 'radiation hot spot'.
This counter reads usually reads not so higher than where I am in 60 seconds mode, but funny thing is that
in 1 second mode the reads very often higher like 0.11, 0.5, 0.09, 0.5, 0.7 0.9, 0.5 0.1 0.38 0.7.
And I found an exact high spot of 5 cm meter above grass where this counter reads 1.5 micro sievelts
in the 60 second mode. (At there in 1 second mode the value raised as high as 2.7 micro sievelts)

Back on March 15 2011 in Tokyo, several hours after the reactor 3 exploded
in Fukushima, one person's say that his counter's read one micro sievelt an hour at perhaps 1.5 meter
higher on the ground. ( Unfortunately I was out of house at that time)

As long as the radaition value stays as above around 0.1 micro sievelts, I am not so much concerned in terms
of outer expose of radation.

I will post laater again, thanks.

Smolt
 
trav110
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:49 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:13 pm

I would leave. I would not be comfortable with that at all, science be damned. I also wouldn't stay because who wants to live in an abandoned city in ruins with nobody else around - sounds like a pretty depressing option to me.
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:29 pm

Quoting smolt (Reply 24):
I will post laater again, thanks.

According to yesterdays news, there are more and more leaks occurring at the plant.         

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-0...oactive-leaks-at-fukushima/4867344

The place is going to be contaminated for decades and decades, i'd be out of there is a flash. Unfortunately for you, I think I would seriously look at moving well away.

Quoting trav110 (Reply 25):
I would leave. I would not be comfortable with that at all, science be damned. I also wouldn't stay because who wants to live in an abandoned city in ruins with nobody else around - sounds like a pretty depressing option to me.

  
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:47 pm

Quoting trav110 (Reply 25):
science be damned.

"Science" is the discovery of truth and facts. So what you just said is "facts and truth be damned." You'd be a great politician in the GOP.

Radiation is a real phenomenon, not the boogeyman. It's important to deal with it as a real phenomenon.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:03 am

Quoting trav110 (Reply 25):
I would leave. I would not be comfortable with that at all, science be damned. I also wouldn't stay because who wants to live in an abandoned city in ruins with nobody else around - sounds like a pretty depressing option to me.

Whoever said the city was abandoned and "in ruins" ? Sure, some people have left, but it's not like Detroit. As for low-level radiation, you can't escape it, it's built in to the planet.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 26):
According to yesterdays news, there are more and more leaks occurring at the plant.

Likely they've been there since Day 1. Just now being identified. That does not minimize the significance of the leaks, mind you.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
"Science" is the discovery of truth and facts. So what you just said is "facts and truth be damned." You'd be a great politician in the GOP.

Radiation is a real phenomenon, not the boogeyman. It's important to deal with it as a real phenomenon.

Well put, Doc.   

As I stated in response to Trav110, radiation is everywhere, it's a natural phenomenon. Even nuclear reactors can be natural, as evidenced by the discoveries at Oklo, Gabon. Likely more to come on that, too.

Most of the heat contained within the Earth is produced by decay of radioactive elements. Right beneath your feet. Overhead, every day, is an unlicensed fusion reactor, pouring out enormous amounts of gamma radiation. Called The Sun. You can't escape it.

Levels of 0.1 micro-Sv/hr are way, way below any kind of health hazard definition I'm aware of, and having worked in the business for 35 years, and handled fissile material, I'm familiar with most if not all of them. There is no need for a panic reaction.

Radiation is something that need not be feared, but it must be respected. Which is why workers in the nuclear area are usually pretty cautious. Those that aren't tend to get sent home.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21974
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:51 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
Levels of 0.1 micro-Sv/hr are way, way below any kind of health hazard definition I'm aware of, and having worked in the business for 35 years, and handled fissile material, I'm familiar with most if not all of them. There is no need for a panic reaction.

It's also amazing to me how people can panic about radiation and completely ignore very real radiation risks like UV from the sun. I wonder how many of those radiophobes religiously wear sunblock.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:42 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
It's also amazing to me how people can panic about radiation and completely ignore very real radiation risks like UV from the sun. I wonder how many of those radiophobes religiously wear sunblock.

Quite right, Doc. I wonder what the dosage is from a cigarette, since tobacco is known to be carrying Pb-210 and Po-210. Depending on the soil, possibly also Rn-222. All of these radioactive particles go straight into your lungs, kiddies. This is no joke, it's not a drill.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html

Thanks to the US EPA for the fact sheet !
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4352
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:56 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
Radiation is something that need not be feared, but it must be respected.

I think the biggest issue is that TEPCO, the plant owner, has been less than scientific with the "facts and truth" and the Japanese government has let them get away with it for far too long. TEPCO is yet again the last to admit water is leaking in higher levels than expected, proving they still haven't shed their old habit of protecting the company's reputation at all costs.

People like the OP should not have to buy their own geiger counter, they should be able to take their cue from their government. That this government was, and to a certain still is, unable or unwilling to challenge TEPCO is what is causing fear to a point that thousands of Tokyo residents fled, probably irrationally, days after the disaster.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:41 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 31):
I think the biggest issue is that TEPCO, the plant owner, has been less than scientific with the "facts and truth" and the Japanese government has let them get away with it for far too long. TEPCO is yet again the last to admit water is leaking in higher levels than expected, proving they still haven't shed their old habit of protecting the company's reputation at all costs.

Not only not scientific, but basically releasing as little information as possible. A long-standing tradition in the Japanese business world is to not be the bearer of bad news. Not quite denial, but not much better. TEPCO have deliberately kept people in the dark as much as possible.

I have noted elsewhere that the Japanese government currently is planning to restart 4 units next spring/summer, assuming all new safety checks are complete and reviewed. These units are , of course, not at Fukushima.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
trav110
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:49 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:16 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):

Call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that I wouldn't want to live there. There's nothing wrong with that.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
Whoever said the city was abandoned and "in ruins" ?

According to Google Street View, lots of them are abandoned. Or bulldozed. Even if these uninhabited houses don't look like crap now, in 10 years they sure will.

[Edited 2013-08-08 11:18:10]
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:51 pm

Quoting trav110 (Reply 33):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):

Call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that I wouldn't want to live there. There's nothing wrong with that.

At levels of 0.1 micro-Sv/hr, no discernible health threat, way way below thresholds. But if you choose to let fear make your decisions, so be it.

Quoting trav110 (Reply 33):
According to Google Street View, lots of them are abandoned. Or bulldozed. Even if these uninhabited houses don't look like crap now, in 10 years they sure will.

Contract those images with some neighbourhoods of urban Detroit. The city is not abandoned, just portions.. Same difference.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Fukushima Nuclear Accident; What Would You Do?

Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:42 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
Likely they've been there since Day 1. Just now being identified.

Actually they have "just been discovered" by Tepco, but as per usual, they will not confirm, however I believe that Government has for them !

http://www.euronews.com/2013/08/07/f...ay-of-contaminated-water-into-sea/

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
As I stated in response to Trav110, radiation is everywhere, it's a natural phenomenon.

300 hundred tons of water a day escaping into the pacific, polluting the food chain.... Holly crap !

Sorry, but I don't really buy the fact of it all about being "Natural" and ok

It is completely different having natural levels of radiation in our environment, which we are all exposed everyday, to having a man made disaster, with radiation levels far in excess of what truly occurs naturally in a given location

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 31):
TEPCO is yet again the last to admit water is leaking in higher levels than expected, proving they still haven't shed their old habit of protecting the company's reputation at all costs.

  

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 34):
At levels of 0.1 micro-Sv/hr, no discernible health threat, way way below thresholds. But if you choose to let fear make your decisions, so be it.

And you really believe these figures
Who's figures are these anyway ?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 34):
Contract those images with some neighbourhoods of urban Detroit. The city is not abandoned, just portions.. Same difference.

Have a look at these pics from the area, forget Detroit, its totally different from this situation .... looks abandoned to me, and permanently so.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ushima-abandoned-towns-in-pictures
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, apodino, art, boeing767322er, FGITD, Palop, tommy1808 and 45 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos