Can the Japanese nuclear accident become a planet killer?

[cliffordu]

Can this be what kills most of the humans??

[Cali_Democrat]

1. 2012. n/t

[cliffordu]

5. Now I feel LOTS better....

:rofl:

[name not needed]

75. Thanks. Now I know not to believe anything else you post on here.

[tekisui]

2. I don't think that is possible, even if it went worst case.

I think it is a risk of killing lots of people and leaving a large dead zone.

[backwoodsbob]

3. no nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. hmm no... unless you plan to leave for Japan

especially Northern Honshu Island...

[YellowRubberDuckie]

6. Planet killer?

No. Have you seen how nature is taking back Chernobyl? Definitely won't kill the planet. Humans maybe. But not the planet.

[cliffordu]

7. Kinda what I meant - can this fry most of the humans....

[YellowRubberDuckie]

21. The Planet and the humans on it are pretty much separate entities...

[Hawkowl]

78. That thinking has brought us the current predicament. nt

[CJvR]

15. Even...

...the old reactor core is colonized!

[DFab420]

8. No.

Just No.

Simple as that.

[jpak]

9. No

n/t

[Statistical]

10. No.

[Aerows]

11. No

And it is irresponsible to suggest such.

I'm all for climbing on board when there is reason for dissent, but this is just stupid.

No, NO and for Fuck's Sake, NO, please stop spreading irresponsible science - NO.

[cliffordu]

17. Stop drinking. It was a question.

[Kennah]

12. Won't kill the planet and it won't kill all the humans

However, could it kill hundreds of thousands through cancer and related ailments?

Yep.

[Maru Kitteh]

13. In what wild-assed scenario have you imagined that it possibly could?

I mean, that is one impressive imagination! Truly!

[DCKit]

14. No. But it's not a good thing, either. nt

[Blue-Jay]

16. You mean like how we blew up the moon?

Or how BP killed all the oceans?

[cliffordu]

18. KInda where I was headed.......

panic being mostly useless and all.....

[flamingdem]

28. I was near Three Mile Island

and it was terrifying. Lack of information, every hour a new problem.

You didn't know whether to flee. It could have been a Chernobyl.

If I was in Tokyo I think that I would not wait for the winds to shift
and bring a cancer inducing dose to my door with those reactors in
critical shape.

It's not panic, it is precaution.

[name not needed]

76. Or how the CIA used their earthquake machine on Southeast Asia?

[Riftaxe]

19. ROFL

Your post reminds me a bit of people who are worried that with 20k satellites in earth orbit that there is no more room. It shows a distinct lack of knowledge and perspective.

[Thunderstruck]

20. Nope.

[Taverner]

22. I doubt it can lead to a mass extinction of humans

However, folks saying dead spot are probably spot on

The island this happened on may not be habitable for thousands of years

[ikri]

23. No

Even the worst case scenarios aren't close to the level of Chernobyl which burned for weeks.

It won't be pleasant but it won't last long enough to cause enough danger to truly worry about.

However, if you're really interested in what would destroy the planet (not just the inhabitants) try reading this.

[Cleita]

24. No. n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

25. Jim. You're getting dangerously close to the planet killer!"

You'll be killed.

[NutmegYankee]

26. No, there is not even a remote possibility

There isn't enough nuclear material in the reactors to spread a lethal dose over even a tenth of the planet. And that distribution isn't possible as most of the radioactive material (heavy metals) will stay on site.

Also, radiation falls as a function of 1/r^2 with distance. If you receive 1.0 Sv/hr at 100 feet, standing at 200 feet will reduce that to 0.25 Sv/hr. Sure, some of the particles will get out into the wind, but most of that radiation will stay on site.

[JSK]

29. Yes, but

There are tons of nuclear waste in the storage pools that are sitting directly on top of the reactors. If the waste blows it could produce global contamination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16fuel.html?_r=1

[NutmegYankee]

31. Even then, most of the material will still be on site.

Global contamination is possible with a raging fire, but the levels will not be lethal. We exploded hundreds of atom bombs in the atmosphere and spread contamination over the planet. We are still here. And we will still be here.

[Imajika]

38. The media reporting is really quite irresponsible...

"We exploded hundreds of atom bombs in the atmosphere and spread contamination over the planet. We are still here. And we will still be here."

It's like people have forgotten the hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons, some mammoth in size, that we detonated over the years. Even the absolute worst case scenario is nowhere near as bad as people apparently think it would be.

[TK421]

27. no...nature has proven to be more resilient against the many attacks

mankind has made against it....it will bounce back like it always has

What kills most of the humans? I'm not really caring too much about that one...this species has a tendency to reproduce like jackrabbits and survive under conditions a cockroach could reasonably withstand...

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Of course it can, and will...

There will soon be four holes from the Earth's outer crust all the way to it's inner core. All the hot magma will be released and the world will deflate just like a baloon, while hot magma covers the outside. In four to six billion years, the cycle of life will start all over again. I'm so excited about seeing how random selection works out the next time!

[Lost in Space]

43. It's a SciFi Channel Original Movie...

all we need is Lorenzo Lamas, Debbie Gibson, and Tiffany!

[cliffordu]

50. ROFL...Perfect!

Fookin' perfect!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

32. No. But. This is my big chance for...SUPER POWERS! nt

[Ozymanithrax]

33. No...

[Wait Wut]

34. Some of you are serious asses.

I've seen a lot of idiotic statements, irrational comments and moronic threads on this site, but overreacting to a simple question just to attack the OP is disgusting whether or not you've agreed with his/her statements on other issues.

Cliffordu asked a freakin' question. A simple "no" or the kinder, more in-depth explanations, are all that is needed. The rest of you need to take a freakin' yoga class.

BTW...no. I'm not going to try to pretend to have a better answer. I'm a graphic artist, not a nuclear scientist. But, in comparison to Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'd say we'll be okay.

[Ultraviolet Cat]

40. How about some perspective then . . .

Quick answer is no . . . even the worst possible scenario at the plant will not have any substantial impact on the vast majority of life on this planet. Here are some facts to consider:

1) While it is difficult to compare the amount of radioactive debris released into the atmosphere between the accident at Chernobyl and the detonation of the atom bombs used during WWII, the worst case estimate I found is that it was about 400 x higher than the atom bomb (some estimates put it as low as 30x). Sounds bad . . . but there is more to consider.

2) Between 1945 and 1962, the United States detonated 216 nuclear weapons (many of them hydrogen bombs) in its above ground testing program for a total yield of 153 megatons. If you compare this to the ~20 kiloton detonation of the atom bombs dropped on Japan, this was the equivalent of detonating 7650 "Fat Man" bombs. This number also doesn't account for the underwater tests, nor the underground tests.

3) The rest of the countries of the world detonated about the same number of nuclear bombs in above ground test in total as the US, which brings our worldwide detonation to ~15,000x the bombs used during WWII. This means that the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has released an amount of nuclear debris into the atmosphere that is the equivalent of 15000/400 or ~40 Chernobyl level nuclear accidents.

4) Since it is unlikely that there will be a release of nuclear debris into the atmosphere anywhere near the level of Chernobyl due to differences in plant design and overall response, we can safely assume that since 40 Chernobyl level releases haven't doomed all of life on Earth, the worst case scenario for the Japanese plants doesn't pose such a risk.

Just a note on terminology for those who are trying to get up to speed on the issues here. There is a difference between "radiation" and "radioactive material". Radioactive material is made up of atoms with unstable nuclei that decay emitting radiation. This radiation has three forms -- alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (high speed electrons or positrons), and gamma rays (high energy photons, or light). Alpha and beta particles are easily shielded against, and don't generally pose a threat when considering the radiation released from a nuclear reactor (alpha particles wouldn't even be able to penetrate the layer of dead skin on the outside of your body). The primary radiation to be concerned about is gamma rays. However, these, like any light, drop off in intensity with an inverse square relationship (a doubling of distance equates to a drop off of intensity to 1/4 as much). This means that even if a reactor was emitting massive amounts of gamma rays, it would only be dangerous to those close to the reactor, not to those far from it (and by far, even a mile would be plenty far for the radiation to drop to background levels).

The real danger is the release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere, since this puts the actual unstable atoms into the air and water. This means that if you ingest these atoms, that they will decay inside your body where all three types of radiation can do damage to cells and DNA. The key here is the quantity you ingest -- particularly in relation to how much you already take in on a regular basis (for example, bananas contain potassium-40, and actually can give off enough radiation to set-off radiation monitors at US ports). The amount of debris spread by Chernobyl was heavy enough in the immediate area to cause serious health concerns. However, by the time the debris had spread to Europe it had diluted to the point of being trivial (the equivalent of consuming between 1 and 10 bananas, depending on where in Europe you lived). So . . . even a massive release of radioactive debris into the atmosphere in Japan would have minimal effect throughout the rest of the world (or even Japan, for that matter).

So . . . again -- there is no grave danger to all of life on Earth, or even all of life in Japan. Obviously all loss of life is lamentable, so I am not trying to be flippant about this situation. People are potentially going to die because of this accident, and that is tragic. However, let's not forget that coal burning for electrical power production is implicated in almost 10,000 deaths on the US every year, and that coal contains radioactive materials that are emitted into the atmosphere in the fly-ash (probably far more radioactive debris than this accident will emit even in the worst case scenario). Regardless of your stance on nuclear power, it is important to keep the scale of these issues in perspective! I hope this works as a more in-depth explanation.

[cliffordu]

52. THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AND THE ANTIDOTE

TO THE MASSIVE LEVELS OF STUPIDITY I HAVE SEEN ABOUT THIS HERE AND IN THE MSM OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS.

Although, I DID think the answer above that had the world deflating like a violated beach ball full of liquid caramel was pretty good, too.......


THANKS!!!!

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. Did you see "The Atomic Cafe"?

It has a scene of some Admiral who's conducting the nuclear testing in the 50's. He reassures the camera that "the bomb isn't going to blow a hole in the bottom of the ocean, letting all the water out and causing all the boats to fall to the sea floor..." (I paraphrase)

Damn good stuff. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly suggest it.

[Wait Wut]

63. Wow. This was fantastic.

Though I've obviously been worried about Japan in all of this, this helped quite a bit. Your last paragraph echoed my take on the whole situation. It does sicken me to think "this could be worse" when talking about humanity...yes, it could be worse. It's like a fatal car crash where the only survivor is the 2 year old. It gives us mortals a tiny bit of hope in a tragic situation.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

May I ask your permission to repost this on my Facebook? I'd like to share it with my family. We're all still very concerned about my daughter-in-laws family in Tokyo.

[Ultraviolet Cat]

68. Sure . . .

I have no problem with you reposting it. I'm glad that this helped!

I completely understand your concern about your daughter-in-law's family. My sister-in-law is Japanese, so her family has been on my mind when I consider the impact of this earthquake (thankfully, they are mostly located on a southern island so they are about as far from all of this as they can be). My heart goes out to all those who have family in the affected area -- particularly to those who have lost loved ones.

[OneGrassRoot]

69. Wow, thank you for that. :) n/t

[marions ghost]

74. No grave danger to "life"

but how about to those of us who absorbed nuclear testing fallout, Chernobyl fallout, and would absorb the fallout from Japan potentially. Should the existing cohort of nuclear guinea pigs avoid cat scans and bananas?

Problem is, since we have no baseline, we don't know how many cancers are related to nuclear fallout. Easy to say there's no danger.

[Codeine]

42. It wasn't a question.

It was an hysterical assertion posed as a question.

[cliffordu]

53. no, it really wasn't.

[MineralMan]

35. No. Not possible. Even in the worst case,

this incident won't kill even a percent of the people on the planet.

[Imajika]

36. Not a chance...

And that you even think it could reveals just how ridiculously alarmist the media has been through this.

[derby378]

37. Not a chance

Worst case scenario is you get a Chernobyl-style "no-man's land" for a couple of centuries and a lot of cases of radiation poisoning and cancer. This, however, is tragic enough by itself.

What you're talking about is an earthquake that registers a 10 on the Richter scale (anything about 10 on Earth is all but impossible), or a supervolcano, hypercane, iminami, or a Chixulub-style asteroid strike.

[Yo_Mama]

39. No

There is a lot of natural radioactivity on planet earth.

Read about the natural reactor at Gabon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

If significant contamination occurs in Japan, though, it sure could make life hell for the Japanese! It's not to be sneezed at.

The nuclear part of this quake-tsunami-uncontainedNuke tragedy won't come close to killing the number of people lost in the first two parts. It won't come close to killing the number of people who die from flu each year. It won't come close to the number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents each year, nor even in the US.

[Codeine]

41. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

This place some days. :banghead:

[cliffordu]

55. I agree for all the wrong reasons. See #40.

then STFU.

[Codeine]

56. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of shutting the fuck up.

:hi:

[cliffordu]

57. Bummer.

[bluedigger]

44. No, because we have laws against euthanasia.

Although an argument could be made that putting the planet down is the morally responsible thing to do.:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

45. I dunno but stockpiling milk somehow makes me feel safer.

;)

[Codeine]

54. NUCLEAR ENGINEER!!!! nt

[northernlights]

46. no. even if all the spent rods go, it will be a dirty bomb, not a nuclear explsosion

it could several damage large swaths or all of Japan. Or it could contaminate an area of the Pacific. A dead zone, but not a dead planet.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[octothorpe]

47. I hope so! Then I know I won't miss anything cool after I die.

[tekisui]

48. Is that your standard for concern?

As long as it is under half the humans, you won't worry your pretty mind?

[cliffordu]

49. Your extrapolation lacks intelligence.

Bummer.

:hurts:

[jtuck004]

51. No. eom

[Zorra]

58. Yes, the possibility exists. It cannot be proven that this will not occur,

because an event of this exact nature has never occurred before, and the event is still taking place, so that all of the relatively predictable consequences of the event are still unknown.

Anyone that tells you that it cannot destroy the planet has no possible way of knowing that it won't, unless they have some amazing supernatural gift and can "see" the future.

[cliffordu]

59. I'll have what she's having.

make it a double.

[Zorra]

61. OK. Please explain to me how I am mistaken, if you can.

?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CommonSensePLZ]

70. .

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

60. If radiation reaches california coast I'd be concerned... time will tell

[Mimosa]

62. Clifford, here's what it can do..

Look if you've a strong stomach:

http://www.paulfuscophoto.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=20&p=1&a=0&at=0


I don't really fear an 'On the Beach" scenario. But maybe the New Testament Apocalyptic book is right about that time when the oceans will all be poisoned, wars everywhere, famine, and the 'living will envy the dead.'

[MilesColtrane]

67. Impossible

Because, as predicted by some on DU, the BP gulf leak already extinguished all life on Earth.

[Phoonzang]

72. NO....Please....stop. Ok....I'm done with DU for a few days.

nt

[Vinca]

73. DU needs to hold a "cheerful message day."

Otherwise, we'll all be jumping off bridges soon.

[walldude]

77. Nope. X-Men.

We are all going to become X-Men.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.