I've been in Japan the entire time:). The offline power is quite a problem, and we may have to go through the rolling blackouts against this winter. That and the tourism hit is becoming really bad for Japan economically.
Here in Japan, the same thing is happening to Softbank. My coworker was told to wait a little while before coming to get his phone because the server had crashed.
Upstate New York, 25 years old and I know about it too (my father has done it many times). It makes sense because it is difficult for a long truck to see how much room they have between the back of their cargo and your car and you are too far back for them to be able to see any hand motions you might make. So it's just a courteous way to let them know that they have enough space.
Yes, but without the tsunami the diesel generators would have been working.....that is the point. For the meltdown to have occurred solely because of the earthquake would have meant it had to melt before the tsunami hit. TEPCO is saying the meltdown occurred around 16 hours after the earthquake.
Nowhere in TFA does it say that the earthquake caused the damage to the reactor that led to it melting. Also, I doubt it is even possible for it to melt in the 40 - 50 minutes it took for the tsunami to arrive. It first has to evaporate or otherwise evacuate the water inside the reactor, and then heat up to about 2800 C to melt. What the article is saying is that the rods had melted much sooner than initially thought. The timeline changed, not the reason. They are also looking into possible complications that may have occurred in the initial hour (there is another report that the cooling systems were manually shut off after a pressure drop, as per the instructions for such a scenario), but nowhere does it suggest that the earthquake, and not the tsunami, caused the crisis. The closest it comes to that is saying that the earthquake may have "damaged" the reactor, but gives no speculation on the effect that it would have had on the cooling system. A crack in the containment vessel without any cracks in the reactor pressure vessel would not have been an issue.
The basic premise of this idea is not a bad one. Japan already has a similar mechanism in place for earthquakes. All Japanese-made cell phones are embedded with an alarm that is triggered by the early earthquake warning system (It only sets off the alarm for the people in the area expected to be affected). However, I think the reason it works is because it has a distinct alarm noise that is built in, not able to be disabled (even in silent mode), and there is no text to read. It helps give people a few moments to prepare or get to cove because they know immediately what it means. In those cases, quick conveyance of messages is key, as pointed out. Getting a text on a tiny screen is very useless for people with impaired vision or people who are driving. Perhaps a better solution would be to have the alarm indicate that they should quickly listen to their nearest source of the emergency broadcast system (radio, television, internet). The information is still passed on more quickly than before, but with much less risk, and much less annoyance if people don't care or are unable to read the messages they receive. That being said, Congress needs to carefully think about what messages are worth triggering the alarm for, or people will simply look for ways to disable it once they get too many messages that are not important. The Japan example is easy, earthquakes are universally feared and an early warning is highly desired. A message about the change of our terror alert might not be as welcomed.
Oh, I didn't mean that it was my concern because it was dangerous, I just meant that it is waste that needs to be stored, and sooner or later we will run out of space to put it. Right? This issue will need to be addressed eventually, either through an advance in recycling technology or a way to generate the same amount of energy on less fuel.
I also arrived at the similar ~11PBq (11007.5 Tbq). I will take your next statement a step further with a rough mathematical approximation. This will be based on things that can be disputed, of course, but it's just for ballpark sake. The wikipedia article states that cesium-137 was being measured. According to mitnse.com, cesium-137 has a yield of 6.1%, and iodine-131 a yield of 2.8%. From that we can say that masswise, just under half (45%) of the amount of iodine-131 was released as cesium-137. WolframAlpha says that cesium-137 has a radioactivity of 3.214 TBq per gram. That comes out to about 3424.86 grams from the 11007.5 TBq. The calculated release of iodine-131 would come to 1572.07 grams of iodine-131. Iodine-131 has a radioactivity of 4598.8 TBq per gram. This would indicate that the released Bq would have been about 7229621.19 TBq, or 7.23 EBq. Of course, since iodine has a short half life, it is not a concern in the long-term.
This is of course, assuming everyone goes exactly to model so it is not terribly reliable, but you can get a rough idea. It is also based on my hilariously bad understanding of math, so if I'm out of my element feel free to correct me.
I agree coal and oil are not a valid solution, but I'm not convinced that nuclear fission is either. Accidents are not my primary concern though, it's the waste that bothers me. Hopefully this accident will bring some revived thinking to either how to improve the nuclear process (or at least start replacing such old technology like in Fukushima) or a viable renewable solution.
Not to mention that the "allowed level" they are basing it on is not relevant in this type of situation. They are basing it off of the standards for drinking water absent any nuclear leak (i.e. drinking water that you would be drinking for your entire life) and as such, the limit is about 0.1 becquerels per liter (incredibly small). You can see this information in question 3 of this Q&A http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20110324-73.html
There actually was a story about that. The drinking water levels of radioactive iodine in MA DID exceed the EPA limits. However, the EPA limits are calculated for a level that is suitable over the lifespan of a human (in 1974 I might add...making this calculation almost as old as the Fukushima reactors themselves), not a temporary exposure . The EPA stressed that in no way would this have any health effects.
Actually you don't have to ingest it, BUT you have to be pretty much right next to it to receive the full dose. "Measurements showed the air above the radioactive water in the pit contained more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour of radioactivity. Even just two feet (60 centimeters) away, that figure dropped to 400 millisieverts." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110402/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_587
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that if the explosions didn't take place that everything would be fine at Fukushima? The reactors would still be overheating, explosion or not explosion. Thus, Japan would still have a nuclear crisis. "International"? In what way is this an international nuclear crisis? I could see the argument that this is an international economic crisis because of the lost output of Japan for companies abroad and the contaminated food not being sold to international markets etc, but the nuclear effects are limited to around 30 - 40 km outside the plant (I live about 200 km southwest of the plant and if it weren't for the news I would never know that anything was wrong). Yes I am aware that they found minute amounts in 15 states of America, but until they are enough to cause any kind of effect at all, I don't think this can be considered a catastrophe for any country besides Japan.
There was not a steady stream of hydrogen coming out of the reactor, so by your own example when the stream from the reactor stopped being vented, wouldn't the flame have been sucked back in like the can with the hose disconnected? Yes, the hydrogen came from the overheated zirconium oxidizing, and it was vented along with the steam inside the reactor (unknowingly at first) into the reactor building to relieve reactor pressure. It then subsequently was ignited by something unknown (to me at least). You say air must have been "pulled in"? It sounds like you think the explosion happened inside the reactor, which it didn't. There is already air in the reactor building. If I am misunderstanding what you said, then I apologize.
I saw that too, but the wording is a little vague. It says two things: highest values in a small are in the northwest, and IAEA operational criteria for evacuation exceeded in Iitate. That could possibly mean that the highest value was found in Iitate, but that is not necessarily the case.
Burn it off with a controlled burn? How do you suggest that they do that? Light a match next to where it is coming out? It's not like they had a lot of options for the hydrogen gas with no power whatsoever on site. Also I don't know what you mean by "build the reactors along the fault line" You do realize that the fault line is in the ocean right? Not directly under Fukushima. By that reasoning, Tokai and Onagawa should not have been built either.
"far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights" where did you get this information? I can't find any data on historic wave heights of Fukushima. Don't just say "Oh there was such and such a high wave in Hokkaido" either, because the geography of the sea floor and the coast makes a big difference. They had a wall ready for a 5.5 meter tsunami, which is still a huge wave. The earthquake sunk the Japanese coast by about 1 meter AND it was hit by a 14 meter tsunami. This is documented in NOVA's documentary on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/japan-killer-quake.html .
Salvage the reactors? They wrote off the reactors the minute they injected them with seawater. They have publicly said that reactors 1 - 4 will never run again. There is a good deal of information out there if you speak Japanese. Otherwise, you have to wait for someone to translate it which doesn't always happen. If you don't speak Japanese then you are in no position to comment on the amount of information that is or is not coming out.
I own a $600 graphics card (though I bought it in 2006) and I happen to do a lot with my computer besides playing games. I spend a lot of time playing them when a new one I like comes out, but I wouldn't even say the majority of my time overall is spent playing games. Youtube eats up much more of my time.....
Yes there are people who are like you say, and there are people who are casual gamers, but there are more types of people than just two.
What's the newest game you have played using emulation as of 2011? As hardware power increases, the cost of emulating older software becomes a non-issue, I agree, but I was referring to newer games. Perhaps I should have made that clearer...
Adding one more level of abstraction always hurts performance. So the answer to your question "Does the game run?" is usually no. Not in a playable form anyway.
Thank you for dividing the world into two types of people: casual gamers and losers (/sarcasm)
What's wrong with enjoying the latest games? Nothing....your sad attempt to turn anyone who plays a game that is newer than 7 years old into some kind of waste of life is pathetic and offensive.
So are they implying that they'd rather develop a game for a very specific set of hardware? Seems like an awful business model to me. Two of the reasons console games look good with lower specs on their hardware is because they are designed solely for gaming, and their specs do not change throughout the life cycle of the device so there is no need to develop for a broad base of hardware types. On the other hand, PC hardware is constantly evolving and multitasking is always going on. Scrap the API and develop directly for hardware, and see what it gets you. A lot of angry customers once they upgrade their card and it doesn't work anymore.
Hmmm because nuclear plants *never* have to worry about something like RISK......I would think that a risk manager would be the one to evaluate the procedures used to contain a crisis, which is what he is describing.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been in Japan the entire time :). The offline power is quite a problem, and we may have to go through the rolling blackouts against this winter. That and the tourism hit is becoming really bad for Japan economically.
Here in Japan, the same thing is happening to Softbank. My coworker was told to wait a little while before coming to get his phone because the server had crashed.
Upstate New York, 25 years old and I know about it too (my father has done it many times). It makes sense because it is difficult for a long truck to see how much room they have between the back of their cargo and your car and you are too far back for them to be able to see any hand motions you might make. So it's just a courteous way to let them know that they have enough space.
Yes, but without the tsunami the diesel generators would have been working.....that is the point. For the meltdown to have occurred solely because of the earthquake would have meant it had to melt before the tsunami hit. TEPCO is saying the meltdown occurred around 16 hours after the earthquake.
Nowhere in TFA does it say that the earthquake caused the damage to the reactor that led to it melting. Also, I doubt it is even possible for it to melt in the 40 - 50 minutes it took for the tsunami to arrive. It first has to evaporate or otherwise evacuate the water inside the reactor, and then heat up to about 2800 C to melt. What the article is saying is that the rods had melted much sooner than initially thought. The timeline changed, not the reason. They are also looking into possible complications that may have occurred in the initial hour (there is another report that the cooling systems were manually shut off after a pressure drop, as per the instructions for such a scenario), but nowhere does it suggest that the earthquake, and not the tsunami, caused the crisis. The closest it comes to that is saying that the earthquake may have "damaged" the reactor, but gives no speculation on the effect that it would have had on the cooling system. A crack in the containment vessel without any cracks in the reactor pressure vessel would not have been an issue.
The basic premise of this idea is not a bad one. Japan already has a similar mechanism in place for earthquakes. All Japanese-made cell phones are embedded with an alarm that is triggered by the early earthquake warning system (It only sets off the alarm for the people in the area expected to be affected). However, I think the reason it works is because it has a distinct alarm noise that is built in, not able to be disabled (even in silent mode), and there is no text to read. It helps give people a few moments to prepare or get to cove because they know immediately what it means. In those cases, quick conveyance of messages is key, as pointed out. Getting a text on a tiny screen is very useless for people with impaired vision or people who are driving. Perhaps a better solution would be to have the alarm indicate that they should quickly listen to their nearest source of the emergency broadcast system (radio, television, internet). The information is still passed on more quickly than before, but with much less risk, and much less annoyance if people don't care or are unable to read the messages they receive. That being said, Congress needs to carefully think about what messages are worth triggering the alarm for, or people will simply look for ways to disable it once they get too many messages that are not important. The Japan example is easy, earthquakes are universally feared and an early warning is highly desired. A message about the change of our terror alert might not be as welcomed.
If they pirated the game that means they didn't buy from the distributor in the present either.....
Oh, I didn't mean that it was my concern because it was dangerous, I just meant that it is waste that needs to be stored, and sooner or later we will run out of space to put it. Right? This issue will need to be addressed eventually, either through an advance in recycling technology or a way to generate the same amount of energy on less fuel.
I also arrived at the similar ~11PBq (11007.5 Tbq). I will take your next statement a step further with a rough mathematical approximation. This will be based on things that can be disputed, of course, but it's just for ballpark sake. The wikipedia article states that cesium-137 was being measured. According to mitnse.com, cesium-137 has a yield of 6.1%, and iodine-131 a yield of 2.8%. From that we can say that masswise, just under half (45%) of the amount of iodine-131 was released as cesium-137. WolframAlpha says that cesium-137 has a radioactivity of 3.214 TBq per gram. That comes out to about 3424.86 grams from the 11007.5 TBq. The calculated release of iodine-131 would come to 1572.07 grams of iodine-131. Iodine-131 has a radioactivity of 4598.8 TBq per gram. This would indicate that the released Bq would have been about 7229621.19 TBq, or 7.23 EBq. Of course, since iodine has a short half life, it is not a concern in the long-term.
This is of course, assuming everyone goes exactly to model so it is not terribly reliable, but you can get a rough idea. It is also based on my hilariously bad understanding of math, so if I'm out of my element feel free to correct me.
I agree coal and oil are not a valid solution, but I'm not convinced that nuclear fission is either. Accidents are not my primary concern though, it's the waste that bothers me. Hopefully this accident will bring some revived thinking to either how to improve the nuclear process (or at least start replacing such old technology like in Fukushima) or a viable renewable solution.
Um...sorry but "unanimous" in English means:
1. (of two or more people) Fully in agreement
2. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) Held or carried by everyone involved
So for that particular to vote to be unanimous it would have to be 419-0.
Not to mention that the "allowed level" they are basing it on is not relevant in this type of situation. They are basing it off of the standards for drinking water absent any nuclear leak (i.e. drinking water that you would be drinking for your entire life) and as such, the limit is about 0.1 becquerels per liter (incredibly small). You can see this information in question 3 of this Q&A http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20110324-73.html
Actually what all the reports are saying is OVER 1,000 :p so your doubts are correct.
There actually was a story about that. The drinking water levels of radioactive iodine in MA DID exceed the EPA limits. However, the EPA limits are calculated for a level that is suitable over the lifespan of a human (in 1974 I might add...making this calculation almost as old as the Fukushima reactors themselves), not a temporary exposure . The EPA stressed that in no way would this have any health effects.
Actually you don't have to ingest it, BUT you have to be pretty much right next to it to receive the full dose. "Measurements showed the air above the radioactive water in the pit contained more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour of radioactivity. Even just two feet (60 centimeters) away, that figure dropped to 400 millisieverts." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110402/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_587
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that if the explosions didn't take place that everything would be fine at Fukushima? The reactors would still be overheating, explosion or not explosion. Thus, Japan would still have a nuclear crisis. "International"? In what way is this an international nuclear crisis? I could see the argument that this is an international economic crisis because of the lost output of Japan for companies abroad and the contaminated food not being sold to international markets etc, but the nuclear effects are limited to around 30 - 40 km outside the plant (I live about 200 km southwest of the plant and if it weren't for the news I would never know that anything was wrong). Yes I am aware that they found minute amounts in 15 states of America, but until they are enough to cause any kind of effect at all, I don't think this can be considered a catastrophe for any country besides Japan.
There was not a steady stream of hydrogen coming out of the reactor, so by your own example when the stream from the reactor stopped being vented, wouldn't the flame have been sucked back in like the can with the hose disconnected? Yes, the hydrogen came from the overheated zirconium oxidizing, and it was vented along with the steam inside the reactor (unknowingly at first) into the reactor building to relieve reactor pressure. It then subsequently was ignited by something unknown (to me at least). You say air must have been "pulled in"? It sounds like you think the explosion happened inside the reactor, which it didn't. There is already air in the reactor building. If I am misunderstanding what you said, then I apologize.
I saw that too, but the wording is a little vague. It says two things: highest values in a small are in the northwest, and IAEA operational criteria for evacuation exceeded in Iitate. That could possibly mean that the highest value was found in Iitate, but that is not necessarily the case.
Burn it off with a controlled burn? How do you suggest that they do that? Light a match next to where it is coming out? It's not like they had a lot of options for the hydrogen gas with no power whatsoever on site. Also I don't know what you mean by "build the reactors along the fault line" You do realize that the fault line is in the ocean right? Not directly under Fukushima. By that reasoning, Tokai and Onagawa should not have been built either. "far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights" where did you get this information? I can't find any data on historic wave heights of Fukushima. Don't just say "Oh there was such and such a high wave in Hokkaido" either, because the geography of the sea floor and the coast makes a big difference. They had a wall ready for a 5.5 meter tsunami, which is still a huge wave. The earthquake sunk the Japanese coast by about 1 meter AND it was hit by a 14 meter tsunami. This is documented in NOVA's documentary on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/japan-killer-quake.html . Salvage the reactors? They wrote off the reactors the minute they injected them with seawater. They have publicly said that reactors 1 - 4 will never run again. There is a good deal of information out there if you speak Japanese. Otherwise, you have to wait for someone to translate it which doesn't always happen. If you don't speak Japanese then you are in no position to comment on the amount of information that is or is not coming out.
I own a $600 graphics card (though I bought it in 2006) and I happen to do a lot with my computer besides playing games. I spend a lot of time playing them when a new one I like comes out, but I wouldn't even say the majority of my time overall is spent playing games. Youtube eats up much more of my time.....
Yes there are people who are like you say, and there are people who are casual gamers, but there are more types of people than just two.
What's the newest game you have played using emulation as of 2011? As hardware power increases, the cost of emulating older software becomes a non-issue, I agree, but I was referring to newer games. Perhaps I should have made that clearer...
And yet another, which goes somewhat higher than that chart
http://twitpic.com/49mm4l
Adding one more level of abstraction always hurts performance. So the answer to your question "Does the game run?" is usually no. Not in a playable form anyway.
Thank you for dividing the world into two types of people: casual gamers and losers (/sarcasm)
What's wrong with enjoying the latest games? Nothing....your sad attempt to turn anyone who plays a game that is newer than 7 years old into some kind of waste of life is pathetic and offensive.
So are they implying that they'd rather develop a game for a very specific set of hardware? Seems like an awful business model to me. Two of the reasons console games look good with lower specs on their hardware is because they are designed solely for gaming, and their specs do not change throughout the life cycle of the device so there is no need to develop for a broad base of hardware types. On the other hand, PC hardware is constantly evolving and multitasking is always going on. Scrap the API and develop directly for hardware, and see what it gets you. A lot of angry customers once they upgrade their card and it doesn't work anymore.
Hmmm because nuclear plants *never* have to worry about something like RISK......I would think that a risk manager would be the one to evaluate the procedures used to contain a crisis, which is what he is describing.