Register to reply

The more political thread besides Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants scientific one

by jlduh
Tags: scientific
Share this thread:
Danuta
#73
May9-11, 09:58 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post

I guess the political lesson to be learned is don't eff around with already-blasted nuclear reactors.
Political lesson learned by others maybe but not TEPCO. Forget them effing around with already blasted nuke reactors, they are still at the effing around with the data stage, which should eventually tell them the nuke reactors are blasted.

Their new tactic is to overwhelm the public with data as opposed to previous underwhelming.

Tepco drowns media in data tsunami
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0110510f2.html

"The result is a marathon of highly technical information delivered in dull and excruciating detail that regularly drags on for four hours or more, to the dismay of the patiently long-suffering reporters.

To some, this dragged-out daily rundown has become another symbol of Japan's cultural passion for process — the very opposite of the decisive, topdown leadership that some experts say is desperately needed during the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

"What is missing is one strong balanced leadership to align everything toward one goal," said Shuri Fukunaga, managing director of Burson-Marsteller in Tokyo, who consults companies and governments about crisis communications.

Fukunaga says Japan is skilled at teamwork, which is good under normal times. But it's a dismal failure at having a clear leader take control — a vital necessity during a crisis.

"The leaders tend to be more of a figurehead when what you need is someone to roll up your sleeves and jump in," she said."
jlduh
#74
May10-11, 02:40 AM
P: 468
If there should be an ultimate reason for not having privately owned companies running plants like the nuclear ones with so heavy consequences to social life and communities around in case of accidents, i think it could be this one:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_20.html

TEPCO seeks govt help to pay compensation

The president of Tokyo Electric Power Company has asked the government for financial help in paying compensation over the accident at its nuclear plant in Fukushima.TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu handed a letter of request to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano and Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Banri Kaieda on Tuesday.According to the letter, in the current business year TEPCO expects to spend an extra 1 trillion yen or about 12.5 billion dollars for thermal power generation and 9.3 billion dollars to redeem its bonds and repay debts.

The utility says it is afraid that the expenses will make it hard to offer just and speedy compensation while maintaining stable power supplies.
In the list of what they will do to raise "maximum" funding, I see "reduce the salaries and the bonuses -which bonuses by the way???? Will they still have bonuses???) BUT i DIDN'T see something like:

"refund the necessary dividends accumulated in the past by shareholders"

(for an other example of huge social impact of a crisis, this remark could apply to all private banks in the financial crisis, with in both cases the TOO BIG TO FAIL THREAT TO PUSH TO ACCEPT THE "DEAL")

Instead of this, sates/citizens will probably pay collectively for it.

For any "normal citizen", this is not acceptable to privatize the gains for years and share the losses with the community. Especially when a company has a so long list of frauds and lies to the community behind her...

Ok, you drove drunk several times in the past, this time you have a huge accident and kill and injure many people and destroy their house, you have to pay fines and penalties for it and... you go to see the government to ask to help you to pay part of the stuff -but promise you will do your "maximum" to pay part of it!

Does it sound right and logical to you, as a "normal citizen"?

I know that it has been said several times here: "don't condemn them as long as you didn't run into their shoes".

But hey, if I was a japanese citizen, couln't I say ALSO that they stealing MY SHOES in fact?
Susudake
#75
May10-11, 09:24 PM
P: 37
Jiduh, first of all thanks for your contributions here--and no need to apologize for mistakes in English, yours is just fine :-).

In the article quoted above this statement also stood out:

[quote]

Goshi Hosono, an adviser to the prime minister, initiated the joint news conferences at Tepco, hoping to send a unified message to the public and the international community.

"We have not been mistaken in our response to the crisis," he told reporters. "But our public relations effort has been lacking."

[end quote]

Is it just me or is this guy (and the many others I suspect he speaks for) completely divorced from reality?

Amazing.
Susudake
#76
May11-11, 12:05 PM
P: 37
I just looked through the powerpoint presentation at:

http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

One slide compares radiation doses from flying, chest x-rays etc.

The implication is that external and internal exposure is the same. There is little distinction made generally in information released to the public.

Such obfuscation does not lend credibility to these authorities to those of us aware of this critical difference.
jlduh
#77
May11-11, 05:09 PM
P: 468
You are completely right and i already mentionned it several times, the way radiations are very often presented leads to misunderstanding...

Saying that an alpha emitter can have its emission blocked by a simple sheet of paper is misleading because this only implies external indirect contamination. But this alpha emitter can also enter the body (inhalation, ingestion...) and very often it is not mentionned that then this alpha emitter is the most dangerous one of all for the cells, even if it can act only at a limited distance blocked by a sheet of paper which won't be of any help when in close contact with living cells.

Contamination can be external or internal (from the body standpoint) and direct or indirect. Not only radiations matters, but dust and particulates are also very important of course!
Danuta
#78
May11-11, 05:25 PM
P: 100
Can this get even more irresponsible and fool hardy?

Children Don Masks, Hats in Fukushima as Radiation Looms

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ion-looms.html

Students at the Shoyo Junior High School in Fukushima are wearing masks, caps and long-sleeved jerseys to attend classes as their exposure to radiation is on pace to equal annual limits for nuclear industry workers.

“Students are told not to go out to the school yard and we keep windows shut,” said Yukihide Sato, the vice principal at Shoyo Junior High in Date city, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) northwest from the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear station. “Things are getting worse, but I don’t know what to do.”
Drakkith
#79
May11-11, 06:45 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,494
Quote Quote by Susudake View Post
I just looked through the powerpoint presentation at:

http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

One slide compares radiation doses from flying, chest x-rays etc.

The implication is that external and internal exposure is the same. There is little distinction made generally in information released to the public.

Such obfuscation does not lend credibility to these authorities to those of us aware of this critical difference.
What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.

The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal[1]) or rem (symbol rem) is a unit of radiation dose equivalent. It is the product of the absorbed dose in rads and a weighting factor, WR, which accounts for the effectiveness of the radiation to cause biological damage.
This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation recieved externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.
Susudake
#80
May12-11, 03:26 AM
P: 37
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.



This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation recieved externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.

I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence).....

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?
Dmytry
#81
May12-11, 03:45 AM
P: 505
Quote Quote by Susudake View Post
I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence).....

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?
Well hopefully there's no alpha active dust except in immediate vicinity of the plant. I don't think we had a lot of fuel dust problem after Chernobyl.

Otherwise - yes this comparison of external doses and ignoring internal (and a new limit for schoolchildren, at 20mSv/year, over which someone quitted), that is worrysome. The land is contaminated with cs-137 (beta and gamma-active )and it is just too difficult to evaluate how much of it gets ingested - it is fairly clear that they assume 0 , just comparing averaged gamma doses. The internal doses depend greatly on how well the food is to be tested and how much stuff could be raising into the air when it gets hot and some dirt dries out, etc etc. It can spike when there's a wildfire, for example. It is not something you can just calculate.
Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.
jlduh
#82
May12-11, 04:00 AM
P: 468
Let me ask you a simple question Drakkith:

could you explain me how any measurement in Sv (or mSv) can take into account the effects of ingested and inhaled particles as this parameter is highly dependent, as i mentionned several times before, of what a person does, touches, eats, drinks? (Ultimately it is also very dependent of local windy conditions and relocation of deposited dust for example)
jlduh
#83
May12-11, 05:57 AM
P: 468
An interesting summary of the crisis and its implications from the global nuclear safety system an regulation standpoint. Independance and conflicts of interests.

Note at the very beginning this exchange between a woman living close to the plant ant Tepco Top management:

Woman: You always told us it was safe. Why?
Tepco Top management: I am very sorry.


For me it's the symbol of this disaster.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/engli...105112006.html

More on the various cover ups from Tepco and Nisa in the past (which is part of Ministery of Economy, Trade and Industry).

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:

Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company.
Susudake
#84
May12-11, 06:25 AM
P: 37
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

Yes this is in part what I was getting at--ingestion through inhalation or through ingesting contaminated food.

And it's not just how serious the health risk is--for me. For me it's a moral issue too--obfuscating the difference while children are being affected. It's no different than killing children with, I don't know, depleted uranium? In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us. To quote Edano today: "very deplorable."

I'll note I very much appreciate your input here and if you're the same dmytry at arstechnica, there as well; I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it. Anyway, you have much much more expertise on this matter than I do so I suspect you'd object much more to being lumped with me :-).
NUCENG
#85
May12-11, 06:50 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by jlduh View Post
Let me ask you a simple question Drakkith:

could you explain me how any measurement in Sv (or mSv) can take into account the effects of ingested and inhaled particles as this parameter is highly dependent, as i mentionned several times before, of what a person does, touches, eats, drinks? (Ultimately it is also very dependent of local windy conditions and relocation of deposited dust for example)
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html

Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.
Danuta
#86
May12-11, 08:57 AM
P: 100
Quote Quote by jlduh View Post

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:

"Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company."
Interesting YouTube vid of Kei Sugaoka blowing the whistle. The report is in Japanese but Kei Sugaoka speaks in English. Press CC tab at right hand bottom of vid for English subtitle.

Kei Sugaoka the GE/Tepco Whistleblower 東電のトラブル隠し

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBjiLaVOsI4
Drakkith
#87
May12-11, 09:40 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,494
Quote Quote by Susudake View Post
I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence).....

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?
As Nuceng pointed out, there are several methods of determining the internal dose. Official reports and articles from the media aren't going to go in depth and make these distinctions because they are irrelevant and 99.9% of people wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about.
Drakkith
#88
May12-11, 09:47 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,494
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.
Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received. It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body. So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.

Also, it is entirely possible to accurately track radiation in food and water and calculate the rate of internal absorption people will be exposed to. It is being done right now as we speak. Whether you believe it or not is your problem, and as we already know, you don't believe much of anything unless it agrees with your own views.
pdObq
#89
May12-11, 09:48 AM
P: 93
Quote Quote by Susudake View Post
In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us.
Quote Quote by Susudake View Post
I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it.
You are contradicting yourself big time.
Dmytry
#90
May12-11, 11:40 AM
P: 505
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received.
Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?
It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body.
Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.
So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.
it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that.
They are reporting it as Sieverts because it makes you (and people like you) think that they done the conversion.
And you are the one who has absolutely no idea.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
In binary can we have a value with deci centi mili or more lower valued prefix? Computers 14
Ben and Jerry's 'Boston Creme Pie Ice Cream Appreciation Thread General Discussion 2
You are subscribed to this thread L di/dt vs. i dL/dt kmarinas86 Classical Physics 1
Difference between Identical , Equal , Equivalent Calculus & Beyond Homework 9