8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings

[nismaratwork]

Why would they publicly up the maximum dose to 250 mSv only to allow them to receive 4-6 Sv? There would be no point to the limit if it could be exceeded so readily.

What Al said.

@Al: Yeah, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Still there was a time when they were potentially exposed to 400 mSv/hour... that's pretty rough. Given their constant presence in the area, it's hard to imagine a happy ending for them, expect that they've done heroic work.

 

[Astronuc]

*@&@#&*!+!+!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=C1

Could you please be WRONG sometimes Astronuc, especially about this kind of thing?

From the articles cited,

The news agency, citing the ministry, said, "If a person eats 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) of the vegetable with the largest detected amount of radioactive materials for about 10 days, it would be equal to ingesting half the amount of radiation a person typically receives from the natural environment in a year.

. . . .

That's not really high. I've been exposed to more radiation in a lab than most people would be in a year or more, and perhaps even a lifetime at sea level. That was ~30 years ago, and I'm still here. As far as I know, I have no cancer, and my doctor tells me I'm in better shape than many people who are ten or twenty years younger.

 

[nismaratwork]

From the articles cited,
That's not really high. I've been exposed to more radiation in a lab than most people would be in a year or more, and perhaps even a lifetime at sea level. That was ~30 years ago, and I'm still here. As far as I know, I have no cancer, and my doctor tells me I'm in better shape than many people who are ten or twenty years younger.

True, but now we have 2X government maximum for radioactive Iodine in Tokyo's tap water, and a warning not to give it to children up to the age of 1. If some clicking spinach were the only issue, I'd poo-poo it, but we're talking about sources of varying qualities up to 230 KM from the site in a number of forms.

Then again, maybe you have H₃ for blood and your nerves are clad in depleted Uranium. Have you tried superpowers? "BEEEAAARD MAAAAN!"

Still, it's not so much the immidiate risk as it is the general trend that I find so worrying, and in the aftermath of so much destruction already. Even the Japanese people will eventually panic, given enough hits... it's the last thing they need, and there's already a run on bottled water in Tokyo.

Still IIRC you can get up to 1 Sv/year as the limit working in a nuclear plant in the USA, right? Still, you sure don't want 1 Sv in one sitting... and these people are getting anything BUT a fractionated dose, and with a high Q factor too.

 

[Proton Soup]

japanese should have less of an iodine risk than we do. at least before the incident. they eat a lot of seaweed, and their thyroids should already be tanked up on iodine before this happened. now, depending on how much enters the sea and how it dilutes, that could be a temporary problem. i would be watching incoming food sources for a while.

 

[nismaratwork]

japanese should have less of an iodine risk than we do. at least before the incident. they eat a lot of seaweed, and their thyroids should already be tanked up on iodine before this happened. now, depending on how much enters the sea and how it dilutes, that could be a temporary problem. i would be watching incoming food sources for a while.

Maybe, but I don't know of too many infants who eat Dashi... and they are most at risk in this case.

For adults and children... *shrug* we'll find out in a few months or years, as with all of these issues.

 

[Passionflower]

True, but now we have 2X government maximum for radioactive Iodine in Tokyo's tap water, and a warning not to give it to children up to the age of 1.

I do not want to downplay anything but why in the first place would anyone give a child living in a highly developed country under 1 years old tap water?

 

[nismaratwork]

I do not want to downplay anything but why in the first place would anyone give a child living in a highly developed country under 1 years old tap water?

Formula.

 

[Passionflower]

Formula.

Yes, I give my baby also formula but only with distilled or high quality mineral water.

 

[FlexGunship]

I do not want to downplay anything but why in the first place would anyone give a child living in a highly developed country under 1 years old tap water?

Mixing formula? Maybe the kid is just thirsty. I don't know. It's not that odd to drink water. I do it all the time.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I give my baby also formula but only with distilled or high quality mineral water.

Good for you, but that is certainly not the norm in countries which have potable tap water, or which have no access to high quality bottled water.

 

[Lancelot59]

Woulds stilling the water get the radioactive material out of it? Or would the material just get carried along in the steam?

 

[nismaratwork]

Woulds stilling the water get the radioactive material out of it? Or would the material just get carried along in the steam?

Doesn't really matter, the water is already boiling off, so you have your answer: particulates in smoke, radioactive gasses in the steam, and plenty of residual in the pools.

 

[Amp1]

Would filtration work? Using activated carbon, sand, and plants (water hyacinth?).

 

[BobG]

I do not want to downplay anything but why in the first place would anyone give a child living in a highly developed country under 1 years old tap water?

Formula.

Yes, I give my baby also formula but only with distilled or high quality mineral water.

Generally speaking, bottled water is no safer and of no higher quality than tap water. Both have to pass testing for various contanimants, with the EPA monitoring public water supplies and the FDA monitoring bottled water. And, hopefully, the bottled water you buy doesn't come from a Japanese source near Fukushima, as there will probably be an availability issue for any companies getting their water from that area.

There's exceptions to be sure. A person may live in a metro area that uses a lot of fluoride in their water. That might be good for the teeth of children and adults, but it may not be good for infants (depending on just how much fluoride the community uses). And bottled water, even if the source is a municipal water supply (which is where a lot of bottled water actually comes from since municipal water is likely to pass FDA constraints even before the company does any "purification"), could definitely be better than well water that may have high levels of nitrates (but some bottled water also has high levels of nitrates). Bottled water also could have much less chlorine than the local water supply (not a health issue as much as a taste issue).

You should really qualify that statement just a little to make it true. To make a difference, you should be saying why would anyone in a highly developed country with high quality water treatment facilities give their baby anything but the highest quality, most expensive bottled water that they can buy?

Keeping in mind that cost may not be indicative of quality, of course. In fact, a high cost probably means the company is treating 'raw' water that starts out less safe, while the cheaper brands start with water that's already been treated by someone else. You have to do some actual research and know specifically what you're looking for in order have a decent chance of the bottled water you buy to be worth the cost.

 

[FlexGunship]

Generally speaking, bottled water is no safer and of no higher quality than tap water. Both have to pass testing for various contanimants, with the EPA monitoring public water supplies and the FDA monitoring bottled water. And, hopefully, the bottled water you buy doesn't come from a Japanese source near Fukushima, as there will probably be an availability issue for any companies getting their water from that area.

Thumbs up for the truth. Also, you should mention that a significant portion of bottled water comes from municipal sources (i.e. tap water). For the uninitiated in the world of bottled-water shenanigans, check out some arsenic test results and the sources of some bottled waters. http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/appa.asp

If you're in the U.S. your taxes are already paying for the filters and treatment plants for the water in the tap. In a lot of cases, when you buy it in the bottle, you're paying more per gallon than gasoline just for the bottle.

 

[Passionflower]

Mixing formula? Maybe the kid is just thirsty. I don't know. It's not that odd to drink water. I do it all the time.

Forgive me for asking but do you have an infant? How do you detect they are thirsty and not hungry?

Remember that if you give infants water they fill their bellies without any nutrients. Breast or bottle feeding will just do right, as it has the right balance between water and nutrients, only give additional water in situations like extreme heat.

 

[FlexGunship]

Forgive me for asking but do you have an infant? How do you detect they are thirsty and not hungry?

Uh, it was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek. I went on to say that I drink water all the time. Obviously, I'm not seriously comparing my beverage imbibing habits to that of an infant. Sorry for the confusion.

Incidentally:

 

[BobG]

Also, you should mention that a significant portion of bottled water comes from municipal sources (i.e. tap water).

But this is usually a good thing. If you start out with safe water as your source, you have a good chance of your final product being safe. Even if there's no processing at all except for bottling it, there can be a difference between the bottled water and your local tap water. It depends on personal taste.

The only issue I have with bottled water is the claim that it's safer than tap water. That may be true for a few isolated instances (not wanting flouridated water for infants, for example), but it's not true as a general rule.

 

[FlexGunship]

But this is usually a good thing. If you start out with safe water as your source, you have a good chance of your final product being safe.

Agree!

The only issue I have with bottled water is the claim that it's safer than tap water. That may be true for a few isolated instances (not wanting flouridated water for infants, for example), but it's not true as a general rule.

Depends upon how closely you read your labels, I guess.

 

[Evo]

Let's get back to the topic please.

 

[Ms Music]

I'd like to ask a question about the tsunami if I can... (sorry if it has been asked/answered, I don't have time to read 37 pages )

What was the highest elevation the tsunami went up to on land?

Thanks in advance...

 

[rhody]

I'd like to ask a question about the tsunami if I can... (sorry if it has been asked/answered, I don't have time to read 37 pages )

What was the highest elevation the tsunami went up to on land?

Thanks in advance...

Ms Music:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis" :

On March 11, 2011, off the Pacific coast of Japan, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake produced a tsunami 33 feet (10 m) high along Japan's northeastern coast. The wave caused widespread devastation, with an official count of more than 20,000 people confirmed to be killed/missing. In addition it precipitated a hydrogen explosion and a suspected partial nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Tsunami warnings were issued to the entire Pacific Rim

I have read other estimates as high as 13m. For sure it was in this general range. The waves packed an amazing punch, see http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm" above for perspective on what a 30 - 39 foot wall of water (multiple waves) can do. If you look at the images I provided in the link I think you can estimate how far inland the waves went. I can't give you an exact figure because it depends on the elevation of the land, etc... but it is a substantial. I hope this partially addresses your question. It affected over 200 miles of the coast of Japan.

Rhody...

 

[Astronuc]

I'd like to ask a question about the tsunami if I can... (sorry if it has been asked/answered, I don't have time to read 37 pages )

What was the highest elevation the tsunami went up to on land?

Thanks in advance...

TEPCO reports up to 14 m (46 ft). It's not clear how that was measured other than water marks on the side of buildings. I don't know if that includes splash or it's the level of the water passing through the plant.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Fukushima_faced_14-metre_tsunami_2303113.html

In the US, one plant has assumed ~22 ft, but it has a 30 ft seawall. It may be reasonable for that site.

 

[Ms Music]

Thanks Rhody and Astronuc!

I thought the Sendai Airport might be a good measure, but it lies only 2 meters above sea level... 14 meter marks on the side of a building are very impressive! But once that wave gets to a hill, depending on the slope, how much further up in elevation can the energy push the water? I am insanely curious to find out. My office is low elevation, but not THAT low. (100 ft approximately)

 

[rhody]

Thanks Rhody and Astronuc!

I thought the Sendai Airport might be a good measure, but it lies only 2 meters above sea level... 14 meter marks on the side of a building are very impressive! But once that wave gets to a hill, depending on the slope, how much further up in elevation can the energy push the water? I am insanely curious to find out. My office is low elevation, but not THAT low. (100 ft approximately)

Ms Music,

Do you live in Japan and if so in the area around where the tsunami struck ?

Rhody...

P.S. edit: Never mind, I forgot to check your profile, living in Seattle (and if near the coast) I am sure the question of the wave height would be of interest to you.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'd like to ask a question about the tsunami if I can... (sorry if it has been asked/answered, I don't have time to read 37 pages )

What was the highest elevation the tsunami went up to on land?

Thanks in advance...

A two story boat sitting on top of a two story building indicates to me that the water in this area was about 10 meters deeps.

I've read that the tsunami traveled 6 miles inland. That kind of freaked me out. Have you ever walked 6 miles?

 

[nismaratwork]

I'd just emphasize, this was a ton of water driven by hundreds of megatons... it could have been 1 foot high and still backed up and overcome most obstacles. As OmCheeto says... 6 miles inland... holy moley!

That's a VERY long way for the ocean to go, and I doubt it fully receded at the margins.

 

[Al68]

Still IIRC you can get up to 1 Sv/year as the limit working in a nuclear plant in the USA, right?

No. The limit is generally 50mSv (5 rem), 250 mSv (25 rem) in emergency (I hate using units of Sv instead of the rem I'm used to ). And each facility has its own (lower) administrative limit.

That limit is for total combined whole body dose from external and internal (inhaled or ingested radioactive material) radiation exposure. There is also a dose limit of 500 mSv (50 rem) to any individual organ (150 mSv to eye lens).

That's only for occupational exposure, and obviously doesn't apply to medical tests and procedures.

 

[Lancelot59]

Question: Can severe radiation poisoning really make you start bleeding from every bodily orifice?

 

[nismaratwork]

No. The limit is generally 50mSv (5 rem), 250 mSv (25 rem) in emergency (I hate using units of Sv instead of the rem I'm used to ). And each facility has its own (lower) administrative limit.

That limit is for total combined whole body dose from external and internal (inhaled or ingested radioactive material) radiation exposure. There is also a dose limit of 500 mSv (50 rem) to any individual organ (150 mSv to eye lens).

That's only for occupational exposure, and obviously doesn't apply to medical tests and procedures.

Gotcha, thanks Al...

... 300-500 REM total body exposure is still considered the lethal threshold for acute exposure?

By the way, why the lack of love for Sv? In the case where we have a mix of gamma and alpha it seems useful to stick that quality factor in.