Just a reminder, the radioactivity of light water reactors is in the millions of curies

[jpak]

1 Curie (Ci) = 37 billion decays per second.

A radiation therapy source contains ~1000 Ci of 137-cesium or 60-cobalt - and can produce a lethal dose within hours

The NRC typically limits total isotope usage by individual university researchers to 5 milli-curies per year (5/000 of a curie per year).

For a typical light water reactor...

Total radioactivity in an operating reactor = 15,600 million Ci

Spent fuel at discharge = 5,170 million Ci

Spent fuel 150 days after discharge = 135 million Ci

Spent fuel 10 years after discharge = 2.6 million Ci.

Source: T. H. Pigford et al. (1973) Fuel cycles for electric power generation. Teknekron report EEED 101

There are three damaged reactors at Fukushima that have been shut for less than a week, and many tons of spent fuel at the plant - some discharged in November.

The potential for a major radiological disaster is great - even if a fraction of the total inventory is released.

There have been no reports of how much radioactivity has been released from the plant - only dose rates.

It will be a long time before anyone knows the true magnitude of this disaster.

[closeupready]

1. They know, and it's bad. That's why they aren't releasing that info publicly, and also

why all these Western countries are evacuating personnel entirely from Japan.

[FBaggins]

2. Just a reminder, you're citing numbers that are irrelevant.

Why not cite the number of calories in there if all of the mass was converted to energy (ala E=MCsquared)? It's almost as relevant.

I think they're taking the total mass of radioactive material and adding up how many decays it will give off before becoming inert (millions of years from now). How relevant is that?

Chernobyl gave off an incredible amount of radiation by this measure... but the vast majority of the curies that were in that reactor prior to the accident... are still sitting there.

[jpak]

3. Sorry - I am not

have a nice day

[FBaggins]

4. That's it?

No facts... just "No I'm not"?

Do you or do you not understant what you're posting?

What would it take to release the number of curies that you're trying to scare people with? You don't know, do you?

[jpak]

5. I posted the damned facts in the OP

read 'em and weep

yup

[FBaggins]

6. "facts" that you don't understand.

Perhaps your new nickname should be ALKIADT.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

How many curies did Chernobyl release into the atmosphere?

[jpak]

7. I've worked with radioisotopes since 1977

I know what I'm talking about

yup

[FBaggins]

10. So you're saying that the fearmongering is intentional and not the result of ignorance?

Wow. That's a stunning admission.

[jpak]

12. Posting relevant information is not "fear mongering"

sorry

[FBaggins]

16. When you post something relevant... I'll be sure to take note.

:)

Posting numbers that are impossible is not "relevant".

And this isn't the "not possible to have a meltdown" BS that was realy saying "really really unlikely"... this is physically impossible.

[jpak]

17. Those are real numbers - too bad

yup

[FBaggins]

18. "Real"... but irrelevant and (in the implied conclusion) deeply dishonest.

Frankly, I can't believe that you understand what you're posting because I know you're more honest than that.

There is simply no way for that number of curies to be released here. It's not off by a factor of ten. It's WAY off.

[jpak]

8. 2.5 million curies of Cs-137 *alone* were released from Chernobyl - only 4% of the core inventory

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/cherno2.html

Contaminants Released, Chernobyl

A retrospective view of the Chernobyl accident of Apr 26, 1986 assesses the total radiation release at about 100 megaCuries or 4 x 10^18 becquerels, including some 2.5 MCi of cesium-137. The cesium is the most serious release in terms of long term consequences. The total release was around 4% of the total accumulated activity of the core and compares to a release of 15 Ci at Three Mile Island. The release was then about 7 million times that at TMI. Anspaugh, et al. suggest that essentially all the noble gases and about half of the volatile elements (iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137) were released . The cesium release from all of the atmospheric weapons tests is estimated to be about 30 MCi. The noble gas releases were estimated by Levi to be 45 MCi of xenon-133 and 5 MCi of krypton-85. About 3-5% of the core inventory of the relatively refractory elements such a strontium, plutonium, and ruthenium were released, much more than from a light water reactor meltdown.

<end>

have a nice day

[FBaggins]

9. Thanks for proving my point.

So even in the worst nuclear disaster in history, 96% of those particular curies never left the plant.

Can you explain why that was?

[jpak]

11. My point in the OP - Chernobyl involved only 1 reactor - there are 3 damaged reactors at Fukushima

and tons of spent fuel - some discharged only recently .

Mega-curies of radioactivity

The potential releases from Fukushima are several times that of Chernobyl - even if a small fraction of the total radionuclide inventory is released from individual reactors or spent fuel pools.

get it?

nope

[FBaggins]

15. Can you compare the half-life of cesium to U-238?

If only 4% of the curies (from Cesium) were released (just taking your numbers), what percentage of the curies were released from the Uranium?

Chernobyl involved only 1 reactor - there are 3 damaged reactors at Fukushim

Yep... and a 4th that could be the most serious but least-damaged.

But if the figures in the OP overstate the potential release from a reactor by 1,000-fold or more... does it really become less of a deception if their are four of them?

The potential releases from Fukushima are several times that of Chernobyl - even if a small fraction of the total radionuclide inventory is released from individual reactors or spent fuel pools.

Even if?

Try answering the question above. Your "even if" BS (implying that that's by no means the worst-case) is already overstated.

[jpak]

19. The half-life of 137-Cs is 30 years - and it is volatile and biologically active

it adsorbs to soil particles and can be remobilized and concentrated by organisms - that are consumed by people.

and I did not claim anywhere in the OP that all that material would be released

try again!

:rofl:

Furthermore - there will be realeases of 90-Sr (a biological calcium analog) and 131-iodine (which binds with thyroid hormone) - and the godess knows what else for other fission products.

Trying to wish this DISASTER away is dumb

yup

[FBaggins]

20. Dodging the question?

Don't know or don't like what the answer says about your OP?

I'm glad you can google that it's "biolocially active" and can be "remobilized"

The question you're dodging is how does that compare to uranium and therefore what percentage of the curies in uranium were released in Chernobyl? What percentage of the "radioactivity in the reactor" was released in the worst nuclear accident ever?

and I did not claim anywhere in the OP that all that material would be released

Riiight. All you did was make a big deal out of how much was "in there" and how bad it would be even if only a fraction were released.

All the while ignoring that it isn't possible for more than a TINY fraction to be released in a worst-case scenario.

[jpak]

21. *yawn*

have a nice day

[FBaggins]

22. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

You either don't know... or you do and are either too embarrassed by the error or too invested in the fear.

I prefer to think the former of you... but there is no fourth option.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Also, Chernobyl reactor 4 was not only 'hot' and running at the time of failure, but it was

spiked to (the last indicated instrument output reading) 33 GIGAWATTS at the time the reactor core EXPLODED.

The situations are incomparable.

Closer comparison would be the uranium fuel depot fire in Russia. Oh, wait, you don't know that one by name, do you? There's a reason.

There are additional risks here, over that fuel depot, but the conditions between Fukushima plant 1 and Chernobyl are different in more ways than just 'four reactors' versus 'one reactor'.

A LOT different.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

13. Thanks jpak - I really appreciate your posts. nt

[jpak]

14. the same for you

:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

24. If I may ask

what, specifically, did you learn from it? In your own words.

[bananas]

25. It reminded me what a major fuck-up this is. nt

[FBaggins]

27. Then I have a follow-up question for you.

Aren't the actual reported release numbers scary enough to remind you of that?

Why would making up impossibly high numbers be necessary to remind you of how bad this is?

what a major fuck-up this is

I remind you that this wasn't the result of human error. It was a natural disaster. We may find out later that human error made things worse than they needed to be, but the primary cause it not a screwup.

[jpak]

28. It was human error - they built 6 nuclear reactors on a seismically active coast

yup

[FBaggins]

29. We built a number of major cities along a seismically active coast.

Does that make it human error?

The 10,000+ people who died in Japan in the last week all lived near a seismically active coast.

Was this their fault?

[jpak]

No, it makes it utter stupidity

yup

[FBaggins]

35. 10,000 people dead and you're REALLY blaming the victims?

All to avoid admitting your error in the OP?

I don't get it. This disaster is driving you batty.

40,000 (give or take) people died in car crashes in this country last year. I hope you're not one of those "utterly stupid" people who ever gets into a car.

What other "utterly stupid" activities do you take part it?

[jpak]

36. You are making no sense at all - have a nice day

yup

[FBaggins]

37. I think that I would RATHER "not make sense" than...

...be perfectly clear and say what you're saying.

Those people build their towns and villages in an area that was prone to earthquakes and tsunami.

By your standard, that decision was utterly stupid. Their deaths are their own fault... NOT the result of a natural disaster.

Yeah... I'd much rather not make sense than make THAT kind of sense.

You really need to take it back. No position is worth defending if these are the results of the logic that created them.

[jpak]

34. No, it makes it utter stupidity

yup

[jeff47]

38. And they should have built what, where instead?

Japan doesn't have coal, oil, or significant sources of hydro power. That left nuclear as the only option. And there is no part of Japan that is not seismically active.

So is your solution that Japan should just have just done without electricity?

[bananas]

30. This was not a natural disaster, this was the result of human error.

Was the Challenger disaster a result of human error, or a natural disaster?
Challenger wasn't a natural disaster, and neither was this.

[FBaggins]

31. You're comparing the Challenger to an earthquake???

You're seriously pretending the primary cause wasn't a natural disaster?

I don't see how that argument can be made.

[bananas]

32. But Challenger was caused by cold weather - so it was a natural disaster, right?

Pro-nukes have such screwball logic.
Do you guys get a fax in the morning with the daily talking points?
"Today, the message is that it was a natural disaster."
"Tomorrow, the message will be what Condi Rice said about 911, that nobody could have predicted it" (even though it was predicted by Hart and others).

[FBaggins]

33. No... it wasn't caused by cold weather.

You really can't see the difference between "cold weather" and a hurricane/tornado/earthquake/tsunami?

Hey... it's all mother nature right? I guess I shouldn't be surprised when I see paranoid posts about radiation levels lower than what you get from eating your namesake. Hey... ANY radiation is a bad thing, didn't you know! The comparative amount is irrelevant!

We don't build anything that has a ZERO percent failure rate. You can't say that bridges are poorly designed when they fall down after being hit with a worst-in-history earthquake.

It's reasonable to say that a piece of equipment should be designed to handle cold weather or the protocols should not allow it to fly in those conditions... it isn't reasonable to say that something must withstand ANYTHING that mother nature could send against it.

I have news for you. There are natural disasters that are far FAR worse than this and nothing we build could stand up to them. Is it thus a design failure to build anything at all? Or just things you disagree with already?

Today, the message is that it was a natural disaster."

10,000+ people dead and you really think someone needs to make up a talking point that there might be a connection?

that nobody could have predicted it

Ever heard a prediction about "the big one" in California? I guess they're all idiots over there, eh? Or does it only work in hindsight?