Analysis of radioactive emissions at Fukushima - much more than Chernobyl or TMI

[flamingdem]

http://oilgeology.blogspot.com/2011/04/jim-in-mn-analyses-radioactive.html

Neither Chernobyl or Three Mile Island emitted cesium in anything like the quantities that have likely already been emitted at Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl likely emitted about 2.5 MCi, and Three Mile Island perhaps a hundredth of that amount. So we may be witnessing a Chernobyl every 2-20 days, perhaps every ten days as a midpoint.

----snip

While there are several dozen substances that can be of concern in a nuclear accident, this analysis will focus on cesium-134 and cesium-137. Cesium has a long half-life, is easily incorporated into living organisms, and results in full body radiation exposure. It has been the major legacy of contamination from Chernobyl, and is the basis for the exclusion zones enforced in Eastern European countries today and for the foreseeable future.

Cesium is a fission product, produced by the splitting or decay of larger atoms of uranium (or plutonium, whether from MOX fuel blending or from plutonium produced in normal nuclear fuel reactions). Together with strontium, cesium produces most of the decay heat over a long period after a core is shut down.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory analyzed the core constituents at the Brown's Ferry nuclear plant as a 'reference unit' for boiling water reactors. In a 1,065 MW core, cesium was estimated at 429 kg given an extended period of fuel irradiation. For the slightly smaller 1,000 MW Chernobyl core the comparable figure would be 402 kg if the fuel was fully irradiated, but Chernobyl Unit 4 was only three years old. For the Fukushima Daiichi Units 2, 3 and 4 rated at 784 MW, 315 kg of cesium should be present in each core load of fuel. For the 460 MW Unit 1 185 kg of cesium would be present.

Thus, in the cores of Units 1-4, some 1,130 kg of cesium was in place when the accident occurred. Adding the spent fuel pools (net of the offloaded Unit 4 core) gives an additional 1,245 kg for a total of 2,375 kg of cesium in the damaged buildings
---snip

[Mnemosyne]

1. K&R n/t

[thereismore]

2. 1 Chernobyl every 2-10 days in terms of Cs emissions. nt

[DeSwiss]

3. 2.61 tons of radioactive poison....

...but we're not to worry ourselves about it, because, well just because.

- Peachy.

K&R

[flamingdem]

4. Well.... it could be umm.. 200.62 tons so in a way we're lucky!

Just gotta see the glass half full, hic


Then again reactor #5 and #6 have just stepped up to the plate to cause trouble.

After being ignored all these weeks they want some attention too! And guess
what they have craploads of material and spent fuel pools!

[madokie]

38. Heres are article from the 15th that is saying that

http://dawnwires.com/politics/reactor-5-and-6-going-out-of-control-risk-of-radiation-meltdown/

It is now confirmed by the Japanese cabinet secretary Edano that all 6 reactors at Fukushima are out of control and a complete meltdown is now underway. Fearing a full scale explosion of reactor 5 and 6 is being feared as residents have been asked to keep indoors.

Edano keeping it as simple as possible says “cooling at 5 and 6 reactors seems to be a problem”. This was the same man who had confirmed before the first reactor blowout that “things were under control”. So when he says “there is a slight problem”, we know what to expect.



We fear a nuclear blackout of Japan and probably some cities in Europe. We also expect US coast to be vulnerable once radiation level picks up and starts drifting across the world.

Meanwhile radiation levels have risen in Russia and Tokyo as winds carrying radiation have reached these cities.

[FBaggins]

40. You were posting that just for the laughs, right?

So the full meltdown of all six reactors was "underway" and they were all "out of control" almost a week ago... and no "boom" yet?

Meanwhile radiation levels have risen in Russia and Tokyo as winds carrying radiation have reached these cities.

Russia possibly (at incredbily low levels)... The levels in Tokyo (what little there was) has been falling for quite awhile. Do you have actual evidence to the contrary?

[FBaggins]

5. So says "Jim" ?

Wow... that's an impressive source.

But hey... I understand he's from MN. So he must know what he's doing.

[kristopher]

6. Well according to you the current situation could not possibly occur.

You have been completely wrong at every stage of this disaster, so why not do us a favor and spare us the noise.

[FBaggins]

7. And I was able to convince DU to hide that post, right?

Where on earth did I ever say it couldn't occur?

Or are you thinking of your old friend the straw man?

[flamingdem]

8. Bigger Point: "JIM" is doing the work, the analysis because he care about this

meanwhile our own government and the Japanese government are involved in trying to minimize the impact of low level radiation.

It's an old story, the people get screwed and governments and corporations lie to reduce liability.

Baggins you need to do some work on this, I'd be happy to see your analysis.

What's lacking is information and now research at Colombia University will dry up since the republicans insists on cuts to the Low Level Radiation Research program there.

Just great, we're on our own.

[FBaggins]

10. If only "cares about this" added credibility.

That would help in SO many things.

Unfortunately, it doesn't.

I'd be happy to see your analysis.

We really don't have CLOSE to enough information to even make an informed guess. But we know enough to debunk this theory. He's using a terrible double standard. Assume as fact a low (but perhaps accurate) estimate for Chernobyl and then make up a series of imaginary occurrences for Fukushima. Incredibly high estimates that 50% (for instance) of the Cesium in a fuel rod will work it's way to the surface and be released if a given temperature is reached for a period of time. Then he makes guesses at how much would be released to the atmosphere. He takes that percentage and multiplies it by the entire mass of Cesium in all seven cores/pools.

All this without a real analysis of what the mechanism for release would be. Take one of the cores... how would it all get out? Certainly large amount would in the water that's leaking out... but almost all of that is flowing into the ocean where it would have comparatively little impact. That's probably the case for the pools as well.

But before we dance over every step involved in the process he imagines... just think about the big picture. Does this hypothetical make sense? Can we find any way to validate the premise that high percentages of the total mass will work their way out of the fuel if it reaches a given temperature for a certain period of time?

Darn... if only we had an example of another reactor core that spent days and days at a higher temperature so that we could compare.

Oh! I know. What if there was another reactor that ran at that much higher temperature for days and days AND had fuel that was open to the air AND had an ongoing fire that provided a mechanism to transport that Cesium out of the core and into the air. THEN we could see whether the theory made sense just from a big picture perspective.

If only we could find such a case, eh? This theory would be so much easier to validate. Sigh. :)

[kristopher]

12. You've been wrong about everything at every stage...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x286129


You virtually NEVER post anything that actually supports what you say; and when you do; it is again, virtually always manufactured fission industry propaganda such as the completely trumped up comparison of death/TW rates. You really are in a poor position to make the criticisms you are making.

Try what I do - read the piece and find out what is substantially wrong with it, then discuss it and make your case if you can.

[FBaggins]

13. You haven't read posts by this "kristopher" fellow, have you?

You virtually NEVER post anything that actually supports what you say;

He says while making an unsupported claim three times in a row even after being challenged to back it up? Yeah... that's persuasive.

Try what I do

Find a piece written by someone you agree with (regardless of how far outside of accepted science it may be) and spam it dozens of times rather than actually debate a subject? No thanks.

[SpoonFed]

15. he forgot to mention

that you also resort to half-baked attempts at character assassination, in lieu of well
thought out criticism or insight when challenged. Granted it's more amusing than your
"if and but" wild imaginary speculations and ill-conceived mixed metaphors, but I digress.

(I specifically point to the comments about Dr Masashi Goto, Gunderson, and others, not to mention the kak you throw at fellow DUers. )

[FBaggins]

16. Lol... you didn't follow yesterday's conversation , did you?

It's particularly humorous that you bump this claim of his that I never post supporting evidence for my claims.

It isn't true of course, but it's still entertaining to recall such a claim right after he spent a dozen or so posts ignoring link after link after link while insisting that his data was correct but refusing to back it up.

I specifically point to the comments about Dr Masashi Goto, Gunderson, and others

I'll make similar comments about creation science nuts and AGW deniers. As with your heroes above, each camp has a handful of pseudo-scientists who they dishonestly tout as being the real deal... while 99% plus of the scientists in the field say they don't know what they're talking about.

I'm far more comfortable disregarding the spin of the handful of nuts when the alternative position (yours and kris') is character assassination (and not even half-baked) at the actual experts in the field. Every single one of them.

[kristopher]

20. That is an interesting perspective.

For years you have posted pure garbage. No support for ANY of the claims you make when engaging in a planned strategy designed to obstruct discussions that are not enhancing the nuclear industry's competitive position. That has gone on for years. In contrast it has been my practice over the same period to post the best science that is able to be brought from behind the academic firewall to the pages of internet discussions. That record of that effort can be found by searching the EE forum for the word "spam" since that is what the nuclear supporters usually try to portray these papers as.

Yesterday you tried one of your usual tactics of bullying. I refused to capitulate. That put you in an unfamiliar spot; instead of your usual practice of making an unsubstantiated, merit-less criticism you were forced actually dig something out to try and refute my statement.

So you posted a few links that contradicted what I had written (although since what I wrote isn't controversial I'm pretty sure you cherry picked your sources) and now you seem to think that single exercise negates all of your past behavior and somehow embodies your statements with credibility.

I find it absolutely fascinating that you really seem to believe that process is how credibility is established. What is even more fascinating however, is that within an anonymous internet social domain, you could be correct.

[FBaggins]

21. Not really... it's reality.

For years you have posted pure garbage

Sure... but your definition of "pure garbage" is "someone who disagrees with kris"... just like your definition of "expert" (same) and "evidence" ("something that backs up what kris says").

That record of that effort can be found by searching the EE forum for the word "spam" since that is what the nuclear supporters usually try to portray these papers as.

When the identical post/thread is posted over and over and OVER again... it IS spam.

Your problem is that you have so few sources that you HAVE to post them over and over and over again. You can't apply a little independent thought to the matter. Regardless of how thoroughly they've been debunked, you spam them over yet again... somehow believing that they lend weight to your arguments.

although since what I wrote isn't controversial I'm pretty sure you cherry picked your sources

What you wrote isn't controversial at all. It would be fabulous news.

It's not controversial... it's simply wrong. It doesn't matter whether I would like it to be right... it just isn't.

Sorry.

My comments were hardly a "single exercise". They demonstrate clearly that:

1) You often don't know what you're talking about
2) You make things up and then assume they're facts
3) You refuse to accept correction... regardless of how clearly wrong you were
4) Anyone who shows you how wrong you were is then attacked personally.

And since you need "evidence" that this isn't a single example. You can look upthread at your multiple claims that I've been "wrong from the beginning"... that entirely lack supporting evidence (despite calling you on it).

[SpoonFed]

24. no, it's your pro-nuke myopic

> Sure... but your definition of "pure garbage" is "someone who disagrees with kris"... just like your definition of "expert" (same) and "evidence" ("something that backs up what kris says").

I agree with Kris for the most part, he seems to understand peer-review and logical argumentation. I believe a large number of DUers agree with him too, since there are only a handful of hardcore pro-nuke types that collectively try to derail his posts, like you.

You on the other hand live in a pro-nuclear fantasy world. By evidence of this I suggest anyone take a look at the posts you wrote between the 11th of March and the present with a particular focus on the first two weeks of the disaster where in which you did nothing but construct imaginary thought experiments with no data (peer review or otherwise) in order to debunk the idea that the reactors were going ape shit and that the situation could reach INES Level 7. Post after post, day after day, while the skeptical common sense crowd were trying come to some sort of understanding of where the situation at Fukushima might end up, you did nothing but spout fact less pro-nuclear industry talking points with zero support. I and other argued with you ad naseum.

Well guess what buddy. It reached Level 7. Even now you're arguing in another thread that somehow some Level 7s are worse than other Level 7s.

> When the identical post/thread is posted over and over and OVER again... it IS spam.

Actually, take a look at your own posts. What is spam is your continuous seat of your pants armchair speculation of situations and engineer tasks that are beyond your intellectual capacity. You've made a fool out of yourself time and time again.

This bears the question, since you're so confident in your own intellectual capacity, why resort to the on again, off again character assassination attempts against DUers who differ from your views or people who actually are world renown and hold advanced university degrees in the subject?

I'd guess that the simply reason is because you're a years-long shill for the nuclear industry and that you've been disingenuously polluting the discussions on this board and trying to downplay this crisis every step of the way.

Or you're so arrogantly self-confident and enthralled with arguing on teh internets that you just don't know when to admit you're wrong and stfu and listen for a change rather than post contentless replies in every thread you come across.

From your delight in arguing and revelling in technical matters above your pay grade, I'm split between option one and option two.

[diane in sf]

41. Thank youSpoonFed

[Wilms]

17. Your criticism of kristopher's ever-effervescent advocacy notwithstanding...

...and at the risk of piling on, the character of most of posts leaves me with an unwillingness to read more of them.

You're not helping any possibly reasonable claim you are or can be making...and as such, are tilting at, er, windmills.

Just sayin'.

[FBaggins]

18. That's just the way thing are...

...if you approach the conversation with the "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind" attitude.

I'm happy to review the "character" of any post you have a problem with, but I think you've confused a failure to agree with a failure to debate honestly.

You can see, for instance, that this OP was flat wrong by any objective standard. Why does pointing that out seem to be beyond the pale for you?

[Wilms]

19. Your attempt at damage control makes the TEPCO PR Dept. blush.

Turn it down a notch. I don't get the sense you're an idiot. I've seen no one like that here, including the ones who's viewpoint I don't share. Start there.

:shrug:

[SpoonFed]

25. you have blinders on

> ..if you approach the conversation with the "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind" attitude.

this is highly amusing coming from someone who did nothing but speculate and make up imaginary scenarios for the first two weeks of this crisis.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

34. You don't know how to debate, Frodo. You're too certain that you're right about everything.

That's why you keep getting things wrong.

I notice you always steer clear of threads posting information that makes your earlier predictions look foolish.

[FBaggins]

35. I've seen that claim several times in the last couple days.

Strangley always lacking are any actual examples of the earlier predictions that look foolish.

What a shock.

And no... I only express certainty when I have a reason to believe that I'm correct. There are others who would just take wild predictions that had no basis in reality ("larger explosion when the cores melt to the water table"?) and assume that everything they read here is equally plausible. "Cores melt to the water table" was an outside possibility on the first day or two, but had long passed by the time we discussed it (and some continue that line today).

Where are all the retractions for that type of BS? The Fukushima 50 are all dead men walking. The other workers will never return except as "liquidator" zombies unknowlingly throwing their lives away. Spent fuel fires blowing out many times Chernobyl's radiation... and on and on and on.

[Turbineguy]

46. And it IS about the debate

and not about the science.

Actually, I have learned a lot about debating following this topic. When things don't go well, switch topics. When your points don't work, bring in new points. Attack without creditable sources. Spam the board. Confuse and tire out your opponent to where that person realizes there's no point in trying to bring clarity to this subject.

Every time somebody comes in with numbers or science that does not support "SHUT DOWN THE NUKES WE ALL GONNA DIE!" mantra, that person get blown out of the water with bullshit and personal attacks.

Instead of giving other readers a chance to learn something and to take away some meaningful information, you muddy the waters.

We get treated to meaningless radiation counts, hysteria, videos of ridiculous blow torch experiments, 50 year old metallurgy as if newly discovered, arguments about the difference in melting temperatures of uranium and plutonium that are higher than steel reactor vessels anyway, therefore pointless, speculation and interpretation passed off as fact, bizarre analyses that counter the laws of physics, the list goes on.

The only thing this event does is give fodder for these arguments. So let's look at the success of the anti's: You've needlessly increased the cost of nuclear power (money is fungible, it can be spent on court battles or improving technology and safety/reducing risk). By thwarting every new development, you've increased the amount of nuclear waste. Old plants that should be replaced get extended licenses because of you. The nuclear industry (already somewhat challenged) cannot make any announcement without it being twisted and spun to your agenda. The task is to confuse and nullify.

Is there a nuclear accident that you've actually prevented? Have you improved the technology? Face it, you're a bunch of Luddites.

Do I blame you for being ignorant? No, I don't. I'm not a nuclear engineer and I find reactor physics difficult and often counter-intuitive. I also know that it takes more than 15 minutes of Google searches to learn it.

I'm not in favor of nuclear power. I'm looking forward to the day it can be replaced by something more benign. In the meantime I'm for keeping the lights on.

But, no doubt about it, you win the debate. I just don't know what winning the debate means, where its value is. But you win.

That's it. Rant over. Carry on.

[kristopher]

9. You have been an unending fount of false conclusions

At each and every stage of the unfolding tragedy all you've done is minimize and obfuscate. Your history is replete with wrong.

[FBaggins]

11. Heavy on bluster... low on facts.

Any examples that aren't filled with straw?

Don't worry about me... I won't be holding my breath. :)

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

32. "Frodo" the internet Nuclear expert is so much more reliable, right?

Even though he's been in denial from day one.

[kristopher]

14. Kick.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Oh boy, another attempt to make this look worse than Chernobyl.

120,000 petabecquerels versus about 65 petabecquerels. Incomparable.

Focusing on one isotope is a tiny TINY part of this issue. In both cases, the iodine was a larger issue, and on that score, Chernobyl is still kicking Fukushima's ass.

[FBaggins]

23. Not really "another"... just a bumped thread from two weeks ago.

Yes... focusing on one isotope (really two in most cases), it a tiny part of the issue.

But if you can't make your point with the actual facts and admitting that the point was wrong is simply not as option... this is what you're left with. Playing fast and loose with reality.

[SpoonFed]

26. blatent logical inconsistency in your argument

Do you not see the inherent contradiction:

By example, first you say the Chornobyl apple tree had 120,000 apples versus Fukushima which at present has 63 apples, therefore Chornobyl is worse because it has more apples. Then you go on to say, apples are the wrong way to assess the severity of the incident.

Fail.

PS. Magical becquerel counts of a particular isotope in one location are not a good way to assess the overall severity of this made-made, preventable accident of nuclear power generation.

PPS. Your credibility suffers when you tag team threads with FBags.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Thank you, but I'll construct my own analogies.

I notice that when other people do it for me, the analogies are inherently weak.

By example, first you say the Chornobyl apple tree had 120,000 apples versus Fukushima which at present has 63 apples, therefore Chornobyl is worse because it has more apples. Then you go on to say, comparing the less than 0.00001% of apples on the Chernobyl tree that are purple and 10% of apples on the fukushima tree that are purple are the wrong way to assess the severity of the incident.


Cesium has longer-lived issues than the iodine, and harms the body in a different way. But it is a very small percentage of the total radiation release. The bottom line is, Fukushima is not as bad yet, and may not become so.


Let's say you were semi-omnipotent. You had the power to re-direct the reactor failure to another site. You could choose between what happened at Fukushima, and what happened at Chernobyl, at another site around the world. Either another Japanese reactor on the coast near a city, OR another Russian RBMK type reactor, near a city somewhere in the former Soviet Union.

3 reactors shut down, but hot, and 3 cold-off, plus storage pools hit by a tsunami, versus an RBMK reactor running at 10x it's maximum rated power output and exploding.

Which would you opt for? You must choose one or the other, neither is not an option.

I'd take another Fukushima. Hands down.

[SpoonFed]

28. uh, you're free to pick your poor analogies, sure

It amuses me that you believe my simple analogy was poor but you're talking about purple apples.

My analogy was spot on. Your comments said nothing about variations in apples, just that Chornobyl was more plentiful and therefore worse. You followed that up with a statement to the effect that apples aren't the right metric for assessing the situation.

if your first statement is true, your second statement is false, and vice versa, this is your blatent faulty argument, got it?

You've replied with some nonsensical purple apple metaphor modifications, how wonderful.

Now moving on from that, you've just followed the standard FBags course of action which is to invent some imaginary scenario to which I can't be bothered to read nor speculate upon, I'm trying to stick to reality unlike the pro-nuke types at this point.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Nope.

I dismissed a count of a single type of apple as being meaningless in the face of the total number of apples involved. Regardless of whether this small sub-set of apples may be more poisonous or otherwise differentiated from the other poisonous apples, due to the sheer number of apples.

But you intentionally ignore that. It is clear why.

[SpoonFed]

30. I'll repeat it again

> I dismissed a count of a single type of apple as being meaningless in the face of the total number of apples involved

No. Your first line states that they are incomparable amounts, ergo Chornobyl is much worse based on the number of apples. There is no mention of types of apples or colours of apples.

Then you go on to suggest that this method of counting apples to gauge importance is faulty (to which I actually agree, it's overly naive and simplistic but understandable given the general public's understanding of nuclear physics and their desire for pertinent information that has been withheld from them).

It is not a logical argument to say, that tree over there made more apples so it's more important and then say you shouldn't count apples to determine which tree is more important but that you should count apples, oranges, pears, etc to determine that.

Separately they might be valid arguments but when you put them together, they contradict one another.
Anyhow, if you can't see this, I'm not going to bother trying to explain it further in the most simplistic terms.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I think I see what you're getting at.

The way I worded the iodine part does seem like an about-face. I should have said 'total radiation released' instead specifying iodine, when I criticized the cesium comparison.

I specified Iodine because it represents the lions share of total radiation released, but grammatically, I believe you are right; I made a mistake.

[SpoonFed]

48. Right

I agree with what I assume you are suggesting in that a single isotope analysis of the crisis is insufficient and naive.

On the other hand, I'm very worried about the lack of mention of the U and P until very recently and the generally questionable and tardy data that has come out so far.

I think it's reasonable to say that arguing which is worse is splitting hairs at this point in an argument without sufficient data. It is safe to say that both were terribly bad with global consequences and therefore both merit 7 on the INES scale.

We will have to wait and see to give an intelligent assessment as to which was worse but it's highly speculative and irrelevant at this point, in my opinion.

The situation is bad.
We're not receiving accurate and timely information.

My gut feeling from the numbers and release of information so far is that this disaster is much worse than Chornobyl but that is my opinion at this point.

[Someguyinjapan]

50. An interesting note...

Did you know that Aomori prefecture is apple country in Japan? And as we know, Aomori is just one prefecture away from Fukushima prefecture. So if any place was going to be producing freshly-purpled apples, it stands to reason it would be an area closest to the location currently spewing radioactive filth hither and yon. So Atheist Crusader's analogy just might be spot on!

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

33. Iodine has a half-life of 8 days. Cesium's is about 30 years. More Cesium = Way worse

[FBaggins]

36. "More cesium" DOES = "way worse"

The problem there is that's it's Chernobyl that had "more cesium" released. And we're not talking about a close thing here. There were dozens of places in the U.S. that detected more (sometimes LOTS more) cesium from Chernobyl than the highest readings (Alaska and Hawaii) that we've detected here from Fukushima... and those two are themselves much higher than anything detected elsewhere in the country.

And Chernobyl is many thousands of miles further upwind from New York than Hawaii is from Japan.

I could give you loads of examples. There simply hasn't been cesium detected in quantities that even come CLOSE to what were very common readings from Chernobyl. Heck... most of the milk in Fukushima province is already back on the market (after being below the required levels for three weeks now as required). There's still milk that wouldn't pass that test from the Chernobyl event.

[caraher]

39. This matches what my nuclear physicist colleague found

As a student in Indiana when Chernobyl happened they did their own sampling and had no trouble picking up trace amounts of fission products in rainwater. Last week his nuclear physics class analyzed the rainwater he collected in their gamma ray spectrometer and Fukushima emissions were below their detection levels (they did see a bit more Be-7 than expected, but apparently that mostly comes from cosmic rays - it's definitely not a fission product.

The bottom line is that with 6 reactors on the site, there's more "bad stuff" available to be released. But as badly as the buildings and containment have been compromised, there's no mechanism in play at Fukushima for pumping all that into the atmosphere as effectively as the power surge and subsequent uncontrolled graphite fire did at Chernobyl.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

43. you mean that there's no mechanism yet.

[caraher]

47. Outline a plausible mechanism...

The stuff in the reactor vessels is mostly going to sit there or, if it comes to a meltdown, eat its way through containment at the bottom, which would of course be a total disaster at least locally if it gets into the water supply. As far as atmospheric distribution I'd worry more about the spent fuel pools since there's zero containment on those at the moment; if those drained there's probably enough heat generated to ignite the zirconium alloy and give a steady stream of radioactive smoke into the air.

However corrupt TEPCO is (plenty!), the people risking their lives trying to manage this mess are well-aware of these threats and working to minimize them. The title of the thread suggests that emissions already are much greater than at Chernobyl, but there's no persuasive evidence that I've seen that Fukushima emissions have reached Chernobyl levels; it's not clear that they ever will (though of course they're already at an unacceptably high fraction of Chernobyl's release). The OP itself paints a nightmare scenario lacking physically plausible transport mechanisms for distributing the radioactivity; it seems to assume radioactive materials have a will of their own to attack humans and some magical means to teleport wherever they need to in order to maximize harm.

So yes, it's damned serious business, and it's no mistake that this is classified an INES 7 incident, the same category as Chernobyl. But the dispersion of radioactive materials into the environment is subject to the physical laws of material transport. It's not how much radioactive stuff is there, it's how it gets out, and this scare piece doesn't tell a sensible story about that.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

54. if anything makes it to the water table, the plume will be massive.

[FBaggins]

55. Did you by any chance look at those thermal images?

Or did you just decide to insult others without appreciating what the thread was saying?

[SpoonFed]

57. thermal imagery is useful but it is

not perfect and is no quality substitute for internal measurements in these reactor buildings. They're using thermal because the place is so dangerously radioactive that no one can get in their to take measurements, no?

Same reason they're using robots and unmanned aerial drones.

Go to you tube and see the effect of water on masking thermal imagery. There is a guy on there who has some interesting videos of him sitting on his couch with his cat and has a cola and a spray bottle of water.

Aerial thermal images are kinda like trying to convince me you turned off the oven and that the house isn't on fire but you're too scared and it's too dangerous to go into the house, let alone the kitchen.

[FBaggins]

59. It doesn't HAVE to be "perfect" to prove the UFO nuts wrong.

It's most certainly accurate enough to tell you that there isn't any active fission going on in those cores.

Go to you tube and see the effect of water on masking thermal imagery. There is a guy on there who has some interesting videos of him sitting on his couch with his cat and has a cola and a spray bottle of water.


:rofl:

Yeah... just like the guy who "proved" on the tubes that steel isn't weakened by a jet fuel fire by burning a gallon of kerosense in a wheel barrow that had some chicken wire in it.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

42. would you drink the Fukushima milk, Frodo?

[FBaggins]

44. The stuff that passed for three weeks straight? Sure.

The people in Fukushima are drinking it.

[SpoonFed]

58. where's the strontium? n/t

[FBaggins]

60. Hiding under Harry Potter's invisibility cloak?

There have been no reports of strontium in any of the cleared milk that's above safety standards.

[Someguyinjapan]

49. Once More...

There were dozens of places in the U.S. that detected more (sometimes LOTS more) cesium from Chernobyl than the highest readings (Alaska and Hawaii) that we've detected here from Fukushima...
"Dozens" would imply a lot-do you have any references to support this position?

I could give you loads of examples.
"Loads" would also imply a lot-please do. I am interested about the empirical evidence upon which you are basing your suppositions.

[FBaggins]

51. Happy to oblige

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7.html

[Someguyinjapan]

52. Maybe I didn't make myself clear

When I asked for references, I was specifically referring to those that catalogued the dozens of locations in the U.S you mentioned; what I did not ask for were references to Aegean Sea contamination, radiation levels in German milk, radiation levels in Sweden and radioactive elements released at Chernobyl. So again, which exact sources and evidence are you referring to where I can find the dozens (plural) of U.S sites that you claim had higher levels of contamination as a result of Chernobyl.

Since you are fond of analogies, I'll try and put this into terms you can readily understand: if you mention that you play with Lego blocks and I ask you which colors you like, giving me information about the address of Legoland in Denmark would be the wrong answer.

Hope that helps.

[FBaggins]

53. Sorry... I guess I gave you too much credit.

Try paging forward. Or you could just click the "U.S.A. link there near the top of the page.

There were two different statements. One dealt with spots in the U.S., the other dealt with the wider set of examples worldwide that demonstrate that Fukushima doesn't hold a candle to Chernobyl. So I gave you a link to the top page of several.

[SpoonFed]

56. seemed like a reasonable request

since so many of your facts and comments are in a desperate state of "citation required". But hey, next time you demand facts, someone can just post a link to a google.com search and tell you to page forward a bit.

Who do you think you're kidding by using an oft used technique of swamping the person who requested specific further information or call you out on a point to feed them a fire hose of information hoping they will go away.

Smacks of intellectual dishonesty or lazines to me.

[FBaggins]

61. Just proving your bias... thanks.

He asked for two seperate statements to be backed up. When there are hundreds of samples reported, it's going to take a few pages to do so.

What eats at you is how clear the data is. Since you can't deal with the fact that it clearly demonstrates that Fukushima and Chernobyl are in different leagues... so you bluster about "I don't have to admit the error because you linked to the first page of the section intead of the one I now want".

next time you demand facts, someone can just...

... just insist that the facts are there and everyone knows it - so you won't waste your time?

Yeah... we saw that already. Intellectual dishonesty indeed.

[SpoonFed]

62. haha FBags doesn't know how to cite anything.

And he gets angry if you ask for some.

He asked for two seperate statements to be backed up.

That's right and you responded with the equivalent of a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica on Chornobyl.
You're not doing your credibility any favours if this is how you think proper citations work.

Clearly you don't understand this.

[Turbineguy]

37. So that's

good news then.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.