Johnson's statement was made in a letter to Hendrie and press conference, Washington DC, May 28 1985.
We do know there was a release of a gas or gases. That would be xenon or iodine. Given their short half life and the fact that they are gasses, it would be exceptionally stupid to search for them in dust on the ground. The release was not significant and nobody got "dosed".
But strontium-90 isn't. Sure it's not Fukushima or Chernobyl sized contamination but I don't think it's ever stupid to do the science and gather the evidence because then you have actual information either way. Has it happened at Chernobyl or Fukushima, I doubt it.
So it should be easy for you to provide a citation for your claims.
So, either we break the speed of light, or we limit population growth. Which seems more possible?
Oh, I see the disconnect. I'm only thinking of colonising the solar system, not leaving it. Breaking the speed of light is a much bigger issue than I'm addressing here. I think colonising the solar system is a viable option for the human race and within our reach technologically.
If you're counting TMI, forget it. That was a scare. No actually dangerous release of anything.
Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions."
Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused.
So if the authorities *refused* to take measurements and have no data, how is it you do?
The only solution - the only solution - is to cut population growth.
But having the capability is, access to the resources and the ability to manipulate space is, a viable solution compared to achieving ZPG (Zero Population Growth - that could have been mentioned in the summary for extra geek cred I suppose). Nothing will shut the human race down until the earth is devoid of the resources for us to do anything about it by which time it will be too late.
We have to do it anyway to ensure the survival of extinction level events so since we can't stop the passage of time or the growth of population, in comparison, getting off this rock is not only viable but simpler. I'm not saying it's easy but the technologies involved in doing that are the same ones we will require to live in the ocean - as under utilised as it is. As long as the human race is alive, it will expand. The ability to deal with these sorts of issues is why we have the problem in the first place.
Think about it.
It only takes a concerted effort to overcome the problems with creating long strand carbon nanotubes and that becomes a gigantic technological leap in terms of our species capabilities. That material can be used to create Space elevators, allow us to build skyscrapers tens of kilometers high or cities on the ocean floor.
What you are suggesting is make the majority of the human population go against basic human instincts which is close to impossible and certainly more unlikely than anything I've mentioned here. If it can be achieved we will be left with the entropy of our entire civilisation as is decays around us and we watch helplessly. Start down that path and what purpose was there in stepping out of our cave in the first place. We've grown up as a species, time to start moving us out of our parents house.
The bottom line is this is either the beginning of civilisation or the end of it.
Fukushima had multiple hardware failures, correctable design problems, and crappy management. The failure was not just due to a low seawall.
The Basis Design Issues of the Mk1 GE reactors ( the Hitachi and Toshiba reactors were based on that design) were known and neither of the two were correctable.
1. The evidence for the Basis Design Issue of the General Electric reactor comes from the tests of the reactor prototype by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Brunswick in the 1970's where it was revealed in the tests of the reactor prototypes that vented when the reactor reached 70psi internally (they tested it with air).
2. A General Electric Nuclear reactor of that design requires a constant supply of power due to the nature of the refueling gate pairs that separate the reactor head from the spent fuel containment. I understand that, due to the nature of the seals on the gates, they need to be constantly powered to prevent a loss of coolant.
These BDIs are mitigated when a reactor is operated according to the Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear facilities, S and B class facilities (those that contain radionuclides (S) or attached to pressure vessels that contain radionuclides (B) ) should not be affected by the loss of a C class facility (a support facility like a backup generator). The actual quake measured around 140Gal at Fukushima but the plant was designed to tolerate 600Gal (S class). As evidenced the C class facilities (diesel generators) were not as they were affected by the quake, and B class facilities (the pumps) were inundated by the tsunami indicating at least two obvious cases of negligence that led to the loss of the facility.
Clear cut case of criminal negligence on TEPCOs part. Further evidence is in the amount of heat in the spent fuel in the cooling pools. There is a pool volume of 1300 tons of water, they are 12 meters deep, there is 850 tons of water above the spent fuel in each except for reactor 1 spent fuel pool which is smaller by 400 tons. There is 60 Million calories per hour heating capacity in the spent fuel rods in reactor 1 spent fuel pool, 400Mcal/h in reactor 2 spent fuel pool, 200 Mcal/h in reactor 3 and 1600 Mcal/h in reactor 4.
The failure mode for a loss of coolant event in those spent fuel pools was *exactly* in line with what would happened if plutonium in those spent fuel pools was exposed, hydrogen was produced and an explosion occurred. That is what happened. Without those spent fuel containment pools leaking there should have been several *months* to do something, ergo the reactors were operating out of spec.
This analysis is based on the available data and it seems a clear cut case of criminal negligence, because the facility survived the initial catastrophes. The risk could have been mitigated years earlier but it wasn't.
I can't be the only one thinking that an organism that is simple and can absorb heavy metals sounds almost too good to be true. Sounds like something that *could* be easy (in relative terms) to genetically modify for cleaning up toxic areas.
My neighbour's teenager absorbs great quantities of heavy metal every day (to the dismay of the entire neighborhood), doesn't seem to possess an IQ much higher than a single cell organism, lives in a toxic area he calls his "bedroom", and I can guarantee you no amount of genetic engineering is likely to convince him to clean it...
What you don't seem to understand is that heavy metal music was written by people with very high IQ's as a way to hack young minds into annoying the shit out of people like yourself.
Microsoft are winning this game, they always have been. They will pillage the open source market and as many markets as they can and squeeze it for every cent. yes Android is pseudo open source, but it's less closed that the ms offering or apples bastardisation of bsd.
Freedom isn't as shiny as Apple or Microsoft and it's not as glamorous. Sure if that's what you choose, then go ahead, but as actual day to day user of open source software on my desktop I feel that choice is slowly being taken away from me. How long, I wonder, before I can't run an approved software stack on a motherboard at home?
I see a slow convergence of Microsoft strategies. I don't ever think they will go away, but I wish they would stop trying to impose their will on my choices. Everywhere you turn there is Microsoft throwing its weight around, cementing its monopoly. They are the MacDonalds of Information Technology.
The politically correct ones. Their asshole is where their mouth should be. It's also why it's more politically correct (in the music industry) to kiss their ass then to kiss their mouth, especially after they've been talking shit, which would be rather unpleasant.
Unfortunately parodies remind them that it's not normal to have an asshole where your mouth should be, unless they are ass kissing, then it's perfectly normal, except they don't like being reminded that they are ass kissing or that they are a walking talking parody of themselves, a bunch of walking talking assholes.
Now that would make for an interesting parody video.
Many people here will tell you there is nothing to worry about, everything is ok. Of course they will not be the one to have to bring up a child who grows up with one of the many issues related to bioconcentrated mutagenic radio nuclides.
When released into the environment radioactive isotopes will end up in the food chain, where they are bio-concentrated. Some portion will be consumed by humans. The longer more radioactive isotopes are leaked into the food chain from any source the more incidences of cancers will increase through ingestion.
So it's not radiation from your gutters that are going to be a problem for your child, it's the type of radionuclide that you and your child are exposed to that causes a problem. You maybe in luck, but in Japan now the sad fact is that the food chain, especially marine life, will be bioconcentrating radionuclides for the forseeable future. The level of concentration is the question and you are essentially looking at how long it takes for radionuclides to move through the food chain until it becomes available for human consumption. Some food areas will be worse than others but marine life will be the biggest area for concern.
You should investigate the World Health Organisation reports on the after affects of Chernobyl, it's called "The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl
Nuclear Accident" and develop an understanding of bio-concentration of radioisotopes. The predominant difference is it's radio isotope fallout was airborne, Fukushima's is largely going into the ocean.
Your biggest concern is radioiodine exposure as your child grows. Children are highly vulnerable to this form of radionuclide in the form of Thyroid Cancer. The data from the above report showed few incidences until six years after the accident (the gestation time for that cancer) then a steady rise until the funding was cut on the project. Other radionuclides produce different cancers, depending on the exposure.
Radioiodine is short lived but the issue is whether or not the spent fuel in the cooling pools are reaching criticality or not. Generally you would expect a short window of time but if the radioisotope is still being produced then it is an ongoing issue. Unfortunately the lack of information available on the Fukushima plant status makes this determination difficult.
There is a risk, anyone who says there isn't is a liar. Without better information what cannot be assessed is the level of risk.
...if they needed a password reset, their manager had to also be verified and approve them having their password reset. Stupidest policy ever.
Where I work, as soon as we (IT) even hears a rumor that an employee has been canned, we change the password on their account; we don't delete the account until the employee's manager gives us the okay. In an environment like that, having a manager request the password reset makes complete sense, because the last thing you want is a newly fired employee calling you to reset his password so he can sabotage and/or steal confidential data.
I work hard to identify colleagues with this sort of attitude in the work place because I know they're only looking out for themselves, they don't have anyone else's back, can't be trusted and should be ostracised. Basically, what you are saying is, they are not working to process and applying their own value system, i.e. their
prejudices, to the powers they have been entrusted with in an Information Technology department.
If a colleague in my team demonstrated that behavior I would be wary for finger pointing behavior. I'd observe them when the pressure is on and systems are down, they usually keep a safe distance from the action. People with this attitude cannot be relied on to defend their colleagues and I've often found that by defending the very same accused colleague, assisting management to look to mitigating circumstances and the mistake, the behavior is exposed. Usually the team sees them as they are. If the entire team behaves that way then there are deeper issues I'd consider seeking employment elsewhere.
It's a teams responsibility to work to process, not respond to rumors. If process doesn't react fast enough to an employee being fired, then the problem is with process. If a former employee causes damage to a former employer, then it becomes a question of proof and liability.
Not only is the behavior you described unethical, it's unprofessional and one of the reasons IT becomes a soul destroying place to work.
Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility in the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether. As for the PBMR this reactor has some serious design flaws that, upon a closer examination of the design, makes them no better than RBMK as they age, especially when you are talking about a reactor design that lasts a inadequate 4-5 decades.
Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because our technology - especially material sciences - are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor (preferably a IFR style but safer) that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. We need a reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen). In short the smart thing is for us to do is stop producing toy nuclear reactors, while we still can, and build a dedicated place to store the plutonium (ie a granite mountain) that is also a suitable place to build a Terra-watt scale reactor that satisfies those characteristics. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit.
I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. You have to redesign the entire industry, and it's a long term solution, but a much better legacy for future generations than a long term problem that will last a minimum of 25,000 years.
In the meantime we need to invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation so there is enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly.
The DOE's original policy was the 'Defense in Depth' approach to the specification for building a spent fuel containment facility. The reason to choose a specific geology (granite) was, in addition to being stable, to have the geologic chemistry of the rock able to mitigate the effect of ground water traveling through the facility and carrying radioactive isotopes into the water table. The half lives of the actinides would be dependent on the reactor,
Turns out I was wrong. - khallow September 24 2011
Now you insist on misrepresenting what I say.
You said what you said. Your discomfiture is that you made grandiose claims about March 24 a corner will be turned. All those six points show was, no a corner wasn't turned, whatever that's supposed to mean. Completely vague. That they were still trying to assess the situation. All you've rebutted is how those six point apply to NOW not to your March 24 claim. Yes they are making steady progress now, but your "prediction" was wrong then and still is. Just let it go khallow.
Backup generators (which did work BTW for an hour before the tsunami) and too low sea walls (which met the regulations of the day) are not a sign of mismanagement. These were to spec, the disaster was out of spec. When the management is not responsible for the specification, then you can't blame out of spec disasters on mismanagement.
So what you are saying is you know what the specification says? Because I have examined it and it quite clear about what the plant should be able to tolerate. You also claim "out of spec disasters" as a synonym for mis-management when the basis for this has already been trounced by data from, not me, but the reactors operator and manufacturers in this post.
Also there are specific things that you say that indicate you don't have a deep enough understanding i.e, you say;
Letting a cooling pond dry to the point that fuel rods caught on fire does indicate all was not well with TEPCO.
but you have demonstrated you don't understand how it relates to
Coupled with the hard fact that S class facilities were compromised by the lose of a B class facility
Will only lead you to one place. Put it this way if I had to put my money on something I'd bet on GE over TEPCO.
Previous mishaps are, but the accident would have happened even if TEPCO didn't have the occasion mishap.
You are arguing against the facts.
The GE MI BWR cannot be operated above 70psi - [source cited previously ] Basis Design Issue 1
The spent fuel cooling pool seals require constant power to remain sealed or the water leaks out [source cited previously ] Basis Design Issue 2
S class facilities (reactor, cooling pool) cannot be compromised by a loss of a C class facility [source cited previously ]
These are known design flaws with the reactor, that's why the operating parameters are set out by the manufacturer. The consequences were known and that's exactly what happened. TEPCO took a chance a tsunami that size would never happened and skimped on a sea wall big enough to protect the backup generators and lost. We all did.
What makes you think I did admit this point? Perhaps you ought to read what I wrote. To the contrary, predictions are fundamental tests of whether one is right or not. I not only make predictions, I also participate in betting markets where making good predictions pays off and bad predictions fail hard.
In the context of our discussion what you do for a living is irrelevant. Insurance actuary or stock markets, whatever, unless you were using the same level of due diligence here as your employers demand without supporting data it means nothing. If you had the supporting data you would have presented it. As you have not it's unlikely you have applied the same standards. Therefore, in this context of this discussion, your casual predictions cannot be held to the same standard.
I would be interested in your professional opinion if it were supported by actual data. Many other professionals have and their professional assessments have been unfavorable. I'll just stick with their findings, over yours.
My mistake was in including your mental state in my prediction.
You just can resist can you?
The status quo is better than destroying another industry with poorly thought out regulation and barriers. For example, your letter [slashdot.org] sounds prudent
If I wanted to destroy the Nuclear industry I would call for it to be dismantled and I would use my resources to convince others that it was necessary. As it stands I don't like it due to the blatant mis-management and would rather see standards improved so that it actually lived up to it's claims. You constantly accuse me of hysteria yet I am on the record for improvements to the Nuclear Industry at least as early as 2006 that are neither pro or anti nuclear. Pragmatically, I see structural issues that have to be addressed to avoid these incidents. Specifically I have called for the creation of a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility, in granite, to avoid these very situations. A reduction of the build up of spent fuel in cooling ponds at *every* nuclear reactor would significantly mitigate the consequences of accidents such as these.
American Nuclear reactors contain far more spent fuel in the cooling ponds than Fukushima.
Well, sounds like the seeds of a viable prediction to me rest here. This accident is going to be deeply investigated. Any wrongdoing to any degree by TEPCO will be found and exposed because it will help exonerate (rightly or not) the Japanese government. I think wrongdoing and serious mistakes will be found (and you might have read threads where I predicted such in late March).
No you didn't. what you said was;
In summary, I have shown that TEPCO, the owners of the Fukushima 1 nuclear plant, implemented safety systems and measures to mitigate the harm from earthquake and tsunami damage and that that these systems actually did mitigate the harm from a very large earthquake. Yet you continue your ignorant libel in the face of these facts. In your stunted view, not having high enough specs for safety systems is equivalent to all the crazy stuff that the Russians did at Chernobyl.
But now I see you concede that this is a case of Criminal Negligence and that my sarcasm was justified whne I said "Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry really applied itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl" Well thanks for that Captain Obvious but that's not a prediction.
Letting a cooling pond dry to the point that fuel rods caught on fire does indicate all was not well with TEPCO.
What do you think "That, more and more evidence is revealed that TEPCO is criminally negligent even with the hint of data you have suggested at. Coupled with the hard fact that S class facilities were compromised by the lose of a B class facility in line with the Seisemic desi
Turns out I was wrong. - khallow September 24 2011
Mark this day on the calendar, perhaps we should have a public holiday.
I can't help you.
I re-iterate that I have never needed you help. Your help is not required.
you seem to have the impression that knowing a few abbreviations makes you knowledgeable about nuclear power
Dr khallow, what matters here is that I know more than you realise. I am certainly glad you have learned something but you are the type of advocate that the nuclear industry doesn't need because you seem unable to listen. What you need to realise is that the Nuclear industry needs to progress to deal with some of the serious issue that it has. Fukushima is another example of the political, regulatory and operational processes in the Nuclear Industry gone wrong. It's difficult to see what benefit you gain from defending the status quo.
you think that ad hominem insults are evidence-based argument.
Your tactics are to frustrate your opponent into capitulation. It's a childish and disappointing approach. Your belligerence leaves little alternative than to excoriate you to shake you loose from your dogma, if for a moment. I suspect you do it on purpose when you have nothing to offer in an argument except hyperbole. It actually left me wondering if you were a scientologist. For you though, ultimately, it will be unsatisfying. For your information few people who take this approach in real life are respected, sometimes they are hated. If you take the same approach with your personal interactions then I am certain this is how your colleagues feel about you.
We may have made progress here, because you were able to admit that making predictions to prove a point is unwise. Seems like I was able to help you but I suggest you seek professional help to assist you with your communication skills so that you can frame them in a more positive approach.
I see no reason to pull out more evidence because you have demonstrated that you ignore or distort evidence that doesn't fit your worldview.
You have never 'pulled out' *any* evidence or links to support your claims thus you've denied yourself the opportunity to make that claim. I, again, welcome *any* actual information you have to present. On your points, 1) I never claimed there was, 2) Agree, 3) remains to be seen based on if hard data is actually gathered.
you probably still have that stilted opinion that Fukushima should have had huge sea walls because of a 2001 research paper (as if the research were obvious fact and Japan's nuclear industry could turn on a dime)
Um, yes, perhaps if it was there the Fukushima plant wouldn't be the wreck it is now. If it was written in 2001 they had ten years to act on it. Just how much time do you need to design, approve, budget and build a mound of rocks, instead they decided to take the risk on what is now and obvious, and unfortunate, fact. Seems to me more evidence of TEPCO's criminal negligence. Citation please.
I find it remarkable that I made two predictions which came true and yet, you still argue on.
I find it remarkable that the things I opined to be probable outcomes were ignored by you. That, more and more evidence is revealed that TEPCO is criminally negligent even with the hint of data you have suggested at. Coupled with the hard fact that S class facilities were compromised by the lose of a B class facility in line with the Seisemic design criteria for Nuclear reactors, documentation that I have provided link to in the past. If you can provide links to the *specific* point you mention, I'll assess the according to their worth.
For now I won't say that you are lost, as you were able to admit your error.
That's an almost complete demolition of your six points. Please think about this.
I thought about it and came to the conclusion that you are incapable of answering any of my points or supporting your claims with your own hard data. You do twist words quite cleverly but, as usual, you haven't supplied any facts or evidence. You, again, demonstrate that you are completely outclassed in this argument so, instead, you resort to badgering. It's hard to take you seriously.
In actuality, it's *your* claim so the onus is on *you* to defend *your* claim;
Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago.
The facts remain and the information supplied to you was one to three months after your claim. It was constructed this way to give you no room to support your claims, rendering your potential arguments moot points. Some things are predictable. Pandering to your whim where I expended most of the energy gathering information and you claim 'demolition of my point' without any supporting data makes me wonder how you were able to defend your "qualifications", Dr khallow.
You've never posed any argument for me to destroy because, simply put, you have never presented any arguments, facts or evidence to support your vague claims.
Nothing you have said demonstrates that a corner was turned 24 March 2011, which was your original claim.
Yes, this is correct. Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago.
You made that statement on the 31st March 2011, which means you claim all these things were done by 24th March 2011. It's not my fault that you made a lazy and vague point to make your grandiose statement. Your bullshit is on the record as is you inability to define what you mean by your statement and your subsequent attempts to backpedal and massage some meaning into your statement as new information becomes available and then claim that you were right all along to satisfy your sense of self importance and attempt to recover some dignity. You took a gamble that I didn't have any facts to present and that I would back down like everyone else you have bludgeoned with your arrogance, that is so sickening to watch, and you turned out looking like a fool.
Why don't you shut up and do step one. Show that my statement was false? I can wait.
Second, looking back to June a sharp rise in radiation meant they couldn't even get near the plant. So almost three months after your claim it still hadn't "turned a corner"
Third, Spontaneous criticality is still occurring at the sites, disturbingly, it is suspected that this is also happening in the spent fuel cooling pools. That's not even under control. The evidence; the site is still outputting radiocesium. Source Tepco report (June 20 – June 28: approx. 1 billion Bq/hr (1.0 x 109)) Jul/Aug/Sep data not available
Fourth, Tepco's Official Plan for dealing with the accident has, ironically, has not achieved Step One "Maintain Stable Cooling" (So *you* can shut up now) Source; Japan Prime Ministers Office.
Fifth, Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains very serious. Source IAEA
Sixth; Plant has not yet acheived a cold shut down - Source Japan Prime Minister report on Fukushima.
There is so much more that tells us the corner hasn't been turned yet, not even a cold shutdown has been achieved yet. The workers can't even get into the plant to assess the damage yet but you will likely come up with some word twist to justify your position. The worst thing about your position is you show no respect for the workers there who continue to risk their lives to bring the situation under control.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but when you fail to address any of the points in someone's response, you have conceded defeat. Why not just give up on slashdot now?
Why should I? It works for me, I don't care what you do. The plaited and braided cables I have in service still work almost half a decade after being installed, they don't look defeated.
Braiding it would be a retard move. You're trolling, right? Right? Is this thing on? Hello?
Had you not been a prick in our first interaction I may have responded differently but it would seem you have impulse control issues.*
Why not just give up on slashdot now?
Because I instead decided to give up on you. You decided to be an asshole to me first up so I decided to let my troll free with a flamethrower. It's been years and it was fun.
* The overwhelming urge for the poster to respond again will likely twist around in the posters mind for some time now that the posters original trollish response mechanisms have been revealed. Lets watch and observe the discomfiture and see if the poster can engage impulse control or again be drawn into a re-accusation sequence.
I call for the immediate establishment of a geologically stable spent fuel containment facility built into granite
granite? Are you serious? My understanding was the salt is a much better solution.
It's been discovered (CSIRO) that granite has the ability to trap transuranics and (potentially) actinides that are in ground water exposed to radionuclides. The swiss have built a test facility. There are other reasons to make the facility from granite but that speaks to the structure. Salt may still be appropriate as part of the containers in the facility.
I'm certainly interested what you mean, is it with respect to salt as a moderator?
Slashdot Mirror
Citation sorely needed!
PBS documentary March 1999
Johnson's statement was made in a letter to Hendrie and press conference, Washington DC, May 28 1985.
We do know there was a release of a gas or gases. That would be xenon or iodine. Given their short half life and the fact that they are gasses, it would be exceptionally stupid to search for them in dust on the ground. The release was not significant and nobody got "dosed".
But strontium-90 isn't. Sure it's not Fukushima or Chernobyl sized contamination but I don't think it's ever stupid to do the science and gather the evidence because then you have actual information either way. Has it happened at Chernobyl or Fukushima, I doubt it.
So it should be easy for you to provide a citation for your claims.
So, either we break the speed of light, or we limit population growth. Which seems more possible?
Oh, I see the disconnect. I'm only thinking of colonising the solar system, not leaving it. Breaking the speed of light is a much bigger issue than I'm addressing here. I think colonising the solar system is a viable option for the human race and within our reach technologically.
What you don't seem to understand is that
what you're responding to is a joke.
I guess my humor can be dry sometimes, it's not as if I was being serious
If you're counting TMI, forget it. That was a scare. No actually dangerous release of anything.
Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions."
Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused.
So if the authorities *refused* to take measurements and have no data, how is it you do?
But having the capability is, access to the resources and the ability to manipulate space is, a viable solution compared to achieving ZPG (Zero Population Growth - that could have been mentioned in the summary for extra geek cred I suppose). Nothing will shut the human race down until the earth is devoid of the resources for us to do anything about it by which time it will be too late.
We have to do it anyway to ensure the survival of extinction level events so since we can't stop the passage of time or the growth of population, in comparison, getting off this rock is not only viable but simpler. I'm not saying it's easy but the technologies involved in doing that are the same ones we will require to live in the ocean - as under utilised as it is. As long as the human race is alive, it will expand. The ability to deal with these sorts of issues is why we have the problem in the first place.
Think about it.
It only takes a concerted effort to overcome the problems with creating long strand carbon nanotubes and that becomes a gigantic technological leap in terms of our species capabilities. That material can be used to create Space elevators, allow us to build skyscrapers tens of kilometers high or cities on the ocean floor.
What you are suggesting is make the majority of the human population go against basic human instincts which is close to impossible and certainly more unlikely than anything I've mentioned here. If it can be achieved we will be left with the entropy of our entire civilisation as is decays around us and we watch helplessly. Start down that path and what purpose was there in stepping out of our cave in the first place. We've grown up as a species, time to start moving us out of our parents house.
The bottom line is this is either the beginning of civilisation or the end of it.
Viable is the term you missed.
Sorry, I mistyped Thermo Nuclear War.
The Basis Design Issues of the Mk1 GE reactors ( the Hitachi and Toshiba reactors were based on that design) were known and neither of the two were correctable.
1. The evidence for the Basis Design Issue of the General Electric reactor comes from the tests of the reactor prototype by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Brunswick in the 1970's where it was revealed in the tests of the reactor prototypes that vented when the reactor reached 70psi internally (they tested it with air).
2. A General Electric Nuclear reactor of that design requires a constant supply of power due to the nature of the refueling gate pairs that separate the reactor head from the spent fuel containment. I understand that, due to the nature of the seals on the gates, they need to be constantly powered to prevent a loss of coolant.
These BDIs are mitigated when a reactor is operated according to the Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear facilities, S and B class facilities (those that contain radionuclides (S) or attached to pressure vessels that contain radionuclides (B) ) should not be affected by the loss of a C class facility (a support facility like a backup generator). The actual quake measured around 140Gal at Fukushima but the plant was designed to tolerate 600Gal (S class). As evidenced the C class facilities (diesel generators) were not as they were affected by the quake, and B class facilities (the pumps) were inundated by the tsunami indicating at least two obvious cases of negligence that led to the loss of the facility.
Clear cut case of criminal negligence on TEPCOs part. Further evidence is in the amount of heat in the spent fuel in the cooling pools. There is a pool volume of 1300 tons of water, they are 12 meters deep, there is 850 tons of water above the spent fuel in each except for reactor 1 spent fuel pool which is smaller by 400 tons. There is 60 Million calories per hour heating capacity in the spent fuel rods in reactor 1 spent fuel pool, 400Mcal/h in reactor 2 spent fuel pool, 200 Mcal/h in reactor 3 and 1600 Mcal/h in reactor 4.
The failure mode for a loss of coolant event in those spent fuel pools was *exactly* in line with what would happened if plutonium in those spent fuel pools was exposed, hydrogen was produced and an explosion occurred. That is what happened. Without those spent fuel containment pools leaking there should have been several *months* to do something, ergo the reactors were operating out of spec. This analysis is based on the available data and it seems a clear cut case of criminal negligence, because the facility survived the initial catastrophes. The risk could have been mitigated years earlier but it wasn't.
Someone want to translate the summary?
TEPCO fucked up,,bad.
I can't be the only one thinking that an organism that is simple and can absorb heavy metals sounds almost too good to be true. Sounds like something that *could* be easy (in relative terms) to genetically modify for cleaning up toxic areas.
My neighbour's teenager absorbs great quantities of heavy metal every day (to the dismay of the entire neighborhood), doesn't seem to possess an IQ much higher than a single cell organism, lives in a toxic area he calls his "bedroom", and I can guarantee you no amount of genetic engineering is likely to convince him to clean it...
What you don't seem to understand is that heavy metal music was written by people with very high IQ's as a way to hack young minds into annoying the shit out of people like yourself.
Get off this rock.
Microsoft are winning this game, they always have been. They will pillage the open source market and as many markets as they can and squeeze it for every cent. yes Android is pseudo open source, but it's less closed that the ms offering or apples bastardisation of bsd.
Freedom isn't as shiny as Apple or Microsoft and it's not as glamorous. Sure if that's what you choose, then go ahead, but as actual day to day user of open source software on my desktop I feel that choice is slowly being taken away from me. How long, I wonder, before I can't run an approved software stack on a motherboard at home?
I see a slow convergence of Microsoft strategies. I don't ever think they will go away, but I wish they would stop trying to impose their will on my choices. Everywhere you turn there is Microsoft throwing its weight around, cementing its monopoly. They are the MacDonalds of Information Technology.
The politically correct ones. Their asshole is where their mouth should be. It's also why it's more politically correct (in the music industry) to kiss their ass then to kiss their mouth, especially after they've been talking shit, which would be rather unpleasant.
Unfortunately parodies remind them that it's not normal to have an asshole where your mouth should be, unless they are ass kissing, then it's perfectly normal, except they don't like being reminded that they are ass kissing or that they are a walking talking parody of themselves, a bunch of walking talking assholes.
Now that would make for an interesting parody video.
Many people here will tell you there is nothing to worry about, everything is ok. Of course they will not be the one to have to bring up a child who grows up with one of the many issues related to bioconcentrated mutagenic radio nuclides.
When released into the environment radioactive isotopes will end up in the food chain, where they are bio-concentrated. Some portion will be consumed by humans. The longer more radioactive isotopes are leaked into the food chain from any source the more incidences of cancers will increase through ingestion.
So it's not radiation from your gutters that are going to be a problem for your child, it's the type of radionuclide that you and your child are exposed to that causes a problem. You maybe in luck, but in Japan now the sad fact is that the food chain, especially marine life, will be bioconcentrating radionuclides for the forseeable future. The level of concentration is the question and you are essentially looking at how long it takes for radionuclides to move through the food chain until it becomes available for human consumption. Some food areas will be worse than others but marine life will be the biggest area for concern.
You should investigate the World Health Organisation reports on the after affects of Chernobyl, it's called "The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident" and develop an understanding of bio-concentration of radioisotopes. The predominant difference is it's radio isotope fallout was airborne, Fukushima's is largely going into the ocean.
Your biggest concern is radioiodine exposure as your child grows. Children are highly vulnerable to this form of radionuclide in the form of Thyroid Cancer. The data from the above report showed few incidences until six years after the accident (the gestation time for that cancer) then a steady rise until the funding was cut on the project. Other radionuclides produce different cancers, depending on the exposure.
Radioiodine is short lived but the issue is whether or not the spent fuel in the cooling pools are reaching criticality or not. Generally you would expect a short window of time but if the radioisotope is still being produced then it is an ongoing issue. Unfortunately the lack of information available on the Fukushima plant status makes this determination difficult.
There is a risk, anyone who says there isn't is a liar. Without better information what cannot be assessed is the level of risk.
isn't this a feature of Metro already? I'm sure Apple is up for it.
Should just get a room.
> Perhaps I should have said "frothing distance", > or possibly "sweating distance".
How 'bout "squirting distance"?
Snorting distance, perhaps. I mean just look at d4 as an after effect...
...if they needed a password reset, their manager had to also be verified and approve them having their password reset. Stupidest policy ever.
Where I work, as soon as we (IT) even hears a rumor that an employee has been canned, we change the password on their account; we don't delete the account until the employee's manager gives us the okay. In an environment like that, having a manager request the password reset makes complete sense, because the last thing you want is a newly fired employee calling you to reset his password so he can sabotage and/or steal confidential data.
I work hard to identify colleagues with this sort of attitude in the work place because I know they're only looking out for themselves, they don't have anyone else's back, can't be trusted and should be ostracised. Basically, what you are saying is, they are not working to process and applying their own value system, i.e. their prejudices, to the powers they have been entrusted with in an Information Technology department.
If a colleague in my team demonstrated that behavior I would be wary for finger pointing behavior. I'd observe them when the pressure is on and systems are down, they usually keep a safe distance from the action. People with this attitude cannot be relied on to defend their colleagues and I've often found that by defending the very same accused colleague, assisting management to look to mitigating circumstances and the mistake, the behavior is exposed. Usually the team sees them as they are. If the entire team behaves that way then there are deeper issues I'd consider seeking employment elsewhere.
It's a teams responsibility to work to process, not respond to rumors. If process doesn't react fast enough to an employee being fired, then the problem is with process. If a former employee causes damage to a former employer, then it becomes a question of proof and liability.
Not only is the behavior you described unethical, it's unprofessional and one of the reasons IT becomes a soul destroying place to work.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility in the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether. As for the PBMR this reactor has some serious design flaws that, upon a closer examination of the design, makes them no better than RBMK as they age, especially when you are talking about a reactor design that lasts a inadequate 4-5 decades.
Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because our technology - especially material sciences - are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor (preferably a IFR style but safer) that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. We need a reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen). In short the smart thing is for us to do is stop producing toy nuclear reactors, while we still can, and build a dedicated place to store the plutonium (ie a granite mountain) that is also a suitable place to build a Terra-watt scale reactor that satisfies those characteristics. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit.
I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. You have to redesign the entire industry, and it's a long term solution, but a much better legacy for future generations than a long term problem that will last a minimum of 25,000 years.
In the meantime we need to invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation so there is enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly.
The DOE's original policy was the 'Defense in Depth' approach to the specification for building a spent fuel containment facility. The reason to choose a specific geology (granite) was, in addition to being stable, to have the geologic chemistry of the rock able to mitigate the effect of ground water traveling through the facility and carrying radioactive isotopes into the water table. The half lives of the actinides would be dependent on the reactor,
You said what you said. Your discomfiture is that you made grandiose claims about March 24 a corner will be turned. All those six points show was, no a corner wasn't turned, whatever that's supposed to mean. Completely vague. That they were still trying to assess the situation. All you've rebutted is how those six point apply to NOW not to your March 24 claim. Yes they are making steady progress now, but your "prediction" was wrong then and still is. Just let it go khallow.
So what you are saying is you know what the specification says? Because I have examined it and it quite clear about what the plant should be able to tolerate. You also claim "out of spec disasters" as a synonym for mis-management when the basis for this has already been trounced by data from, not me, but the reactors operator and manufacturers in this post. Also there are specific things that you say that indicate you don't have a deep enough understanding i.e, you say;
but you have demonstrated you don't understand how it relates to
Coupled with the hard fact that S class facilities were compromised by the lose of a B class facility
Will only lead you to one place. Put it this way if I had to put my money on something I'd bet on GE over TEPCO.
You are arguing against the facts.
These are known design flaws with the reactor, that's why the operating parameters are set out by the manufacturer. The consequences were known and that's exactly what happened. TEPCO took a chance a tsunami that size would never happened and skimped on a sea wall big enough to protect the backup generators and lost. We all did.
Yes, you are lost.
In the context of our discussion what you do for a living is irrelevant. Insurance actuary or stock markets, whatever, unless you were using the same level of due diligence here as your employers demand without supporting data it means nothing. If you had the supporting data you would have presented it. As you have not it's unlikely you have applied the same standards. Therefore, in this context of this discussion, your casual predictions cannot be held to the same standard.
I would be interested in your professional opinion if it were supported by actual data. Many other professionals have and their professional assessments have been unfavorable. I'll just stick with their findings, over yours.
You just can resist can you?
If I wanted to destroy the Nuclear industry I would call for it to be dismantled and I would use my resources to convince others that it was necessary. As it stands I don't like it due to the blatant mis-management and would rather see standards improved so that it actually lived up to it's claims. You constantly accuse me of hysteria yet I am on the record for improvements to the Nuclear Industry at least as early as 2006 that are neither pro or anti nuclear. Pragmatically, I see structural issues that have to be addressed to avoid these incidents. Specifically I have called for the creation of a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility, in granite, to avoid these very situations. A reduction of the build up of spent fuel in cooling ponds at *every* nuclear reactor would significantly mitigate the consequences of accidents such as these.
American Nuclear reactors contain far more spent fuel in the cooling ponds than Fukushima.
No you didn't. what you said was;
In summary, I have shown that TEPCO, the owners of the Fukushima 1 nuclear plant, implemented safety systems and measures to mitigate the harm from earthquake and tsunami damage and that that these systems actually did mitigate the harm from a very large earthquake. Yet you continue your ignorant libel in the face of these facts. In your stunted view, not having high enough specs for safety systems is equivalent to all the crazy stuff that the Russians did at Chernobyl.
But now I see you concede that this is a case of Criminal Negligence and that my sarcasm was justified whne I said "Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry really applied itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl" Well thanks for that Captain Obvious but that's not a prediction.
What do you think "That, more and more evidence is revealed that TEPCO is criminally negligent even with the hint of data you have suggested at. Coupled with the hard fact that S class facilities were compromised by the lose of a B class facility in line with the Seisemic desi
Mark this day on the calendar, perhaps we should have a public holiday.
I re-iterate that I have never needed you help. Your help is not required.
Dr khallow, what matters here is that I know more than you realise. I am certainly glad you have learned something but you are the type of advocate that the nuclear industry doesn't need because you seem unable to listen. What you need to realise is that the Nuclear industry needs to progress to deal with some of the serious issue that it has. Fukushima is another example of the political, regulatory and operational processes in the Nuclear Industry gone wrong. It's difficult to see what benefit you gain from defending the status quo.
Your tactics are to frustrate your opponent into capitulation. It's a childish and disappointing approach. Your belligerence leaves little alternative than to excoriate you to shake you loose from your dogma, if for a moment. I suspect you do it on purpose when you have nothing to offer in an argument except hyperbole. It actually left me wondering if you were a scientologist. For you though, ultimately, it will be unsatisfying. For your information few people who take this approach in real life are respected, sometimes they are hated. If you take the same approach with your personal interactions then I am certain this is how your colleagues feel about you.
We may have made progress here, because you were able to admit that making predictions to prove a point is unwise. Seems like I was able to help you but I suggest you seek professional help to assist you with your communication skills so that you can frame them in a more positive approach.
You have never 'pulled out' *any* evidence or links to support your claims thus you've denied yourself the opportunity to make that claim. I, again, welcome *any* actual information you have to present. On your points, 1) I never claimed there was, 2) Agree, 3) remains to be seen based on if hard data is actually gathered.
Um, yes, perhaps if it was there the Fukushima plant wouldn't be the wreck it is now. If it was written in 2001 they had ten years to act on it. Just how much time do you need to design, approve, budget and build a mound of rocks, instead they decided to take the risk on what is now and obvious, and unfortunate, fact. Seems to me more evidence of TEPCO's criminal negligence. Citation please.
I find it remarkable that the things I opined to be probable outcomes were ignored by you. That, more and more evidence is revealed that TEPCO is criminally negligent even with the hint of data you have suggested at. Coupled with the hard fact that S class facilities were compromised by the lose of a B class facility in line with the Seisemic design criteria for Nuclear reactors, documentation that I have provided link to in the past. If you can provide links to the *specific* point you mention, I'll assess the according to their worth.
For now I won't say that you are lost, as you were able to admit your error.
I thought about it and came to the conclusion that you are incapable of answering any of my points or supporting your claims with your own hard data. You do twist words quite cleverly but, as usual, you haven't supplied any facts or evidence. You, again, demonstrate that you are completely outclassed in this argument so, instead, you resort to badgering. It's hard to take you seriously.
In actuality, it's *your* claim so the onus is on *you* to defend *your* claim;
The facts remain and the information supplied to you was one to three months after your claim. It was constructed this way to give you no room to support your claims, rendering your potential arguments moot points. Some things are predictable. Pandering to your whim where I expended most of the energy gathering information and you claim 'demolition of my point' without any supporting data makes me wonder how you were able to defend your "qualifications", Dr khallow.
You've never posed any argument for me to destroy because, simply put, you have never presented any arguments, facts or evidence to support your vague claims.
Nothing you have said demonstrates that a corner was turned 24 March 2011, which was your original claim.
You are lost.
Yes, this is correct. Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago.
You made that statement on the 31st March 2011, which means you claim all these things were done by 24th March 2011. It's not my fault that you made a lazy and vague point to make your grandiose statement. Your bullshit is on the record as is you inability to define what you mean by your statement and your subsequent attempts to backpedal and massage some meaning into your statement as new information becomes available and then claim that you were right all along to satisfy your sense of self importance and attempt to recover some dignity. You took a gamble that I didn't have any facts to present and that I would back down like everyone else you have bludgeoned with your arrogance, that is so sickening to watch, and you turned out looking like a fool.
Why don't you shut up and do step one. Show that my statement was false? I can wait.
First, I've already done that here.
Second, looking back to June a sharp rise in radiation meant they couldn't even get near the plant. So almost three months after your claim it still hadn't "turned a corner"
Third, Spontaneous criticality is still occurring at the sites, disturbingly, it is suspected that this is also happening in the spent fuel cooling pools. That's not even under control. The evidence; the site is still outputting radiocesium. Source Tepco report (June 20 – June 28: approx. 1 billion Bq/hr (1.0 x 109)) Jul/Aug/Sep data not available
Fourth, Tepco's Official Plan for dealing with the accident has, ironically, has not achieved Step One "Maintain Stable Cooling" (So *you* can shut up now) Source; Japan Prime Ministers Office.
Fifth, Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains very serious. Source IAEA
Sixth; Plant has not yet acheived a cold shut down - Source Japan Prime Minister report on Fukushima.
Bloomberg, Reuters, Summary of Reactor Status (2 June 2011) - Presentation Transcript etc etc
There is so much more that tells us the corner hasn't been turned yet, not even a cold shutdown has been achieved yet. The workers can't even get into the plant to assess the damage yet but you will likely come up with some word twist to justify your position. The worst thing about your position is you show no respect for the workers there who continue to risk their lives to bring the situation under control.
You are lost.
see what MrKaos did there.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but when you fail to address any of the points in someone's response, you have conceded defeat. Why not just give up on slashdot now?
Why should I? It works for me, I don't care what you do. The plaited and braided cables I have in service still work almost half a decade after being installed, they don't look defeated.
Had you not been a prick in our first interaction I may have responded differently but it would seem you have impulse control issues.*
Because I instead decided to give up on you. You decided to be an asshole to me first up so I decided to let my troll free with a flamethrower. It's been years and it was fun.
* The overwhelming urge for the poster to respond again will likely twist around in the posters mind for some time now that the posters original trollish response mechanisms have been revealed. Lets watch and observe the discomfiture and see if the poster can engage impulse control or again be drawn into a re-accusation sequence.
I call for the immediate establishment of a geologically stable spent fuel containment facility built into granite
granite? Are you serious? My understanding was the salt is a much better solution.
It's been discovered (CSIRO) that granite has the ability to trap transuranics and (potentially) actinides that are in ground water exposed to radionuclides. The swiss have built a test facility. There are other reasons to make the facility from granite but that speaks to the structure. Salt may still be appropriate as part of the containers in the facility.
I'm certainly interested what you mean, is it with respect to salt as a moderator?