Page 18 of 55 FirstFirst ... 8910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 1362

Thread: Japan: 9.0 Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Reactor Status #4

  1. #426
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hinky Hollow
    Posts
    14,702
    I think what's bothering me the most at this point is that no one is releasing the radiation levels, here or there...if they were nothing to worry about - they would release them. Actually they would be shouting them from the rooftops.
    If there's hink....there must be stink.

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to tehcloser For This Useful Post:


  3. #427
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiche View Post
    The state will be getting a dousing for the next few days, I'm in northern, but it does reach to LA.

    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/...%2C+California
    Question? On one hand I hear radiation is a cumulative effect unless you're right there like the Japanese workers are - in my opinion they are sacrificing themselves.

    On the other hand, if California is getting radiation, in whatever amounts, and it keeps on coming, won't it accumulate, in the water, in the soil, maybe in the body?

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  5. #428
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    168
    California receiving some fallout.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/...ation_monitors

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:


  7. #429
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Question? On one hand I hear radiation is a cumulative effect unless you're right there like the Japanese workers are - in my opinion they are sacrificing themselves.

    On the other hand, if California is getting radiation, in whatever amounts, and it keeps on coming, won't it accumulate, in the water, in the soil, maybe in the body?
    Exactly. I'm ASSUMING it will accumulate. Maybe someone here knows for sure.

    And they're not even close to stopping it. MOO.

    O/T: It seems like we lost all our members on the thread to Billie.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:


  9. #430
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by UFO View Post
    Here's a quote I found interesting from the above link:

    "Initial readings are "about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening," the diplomat told The Associated Press. He asked for anonymity because the CTBO does not make its findings public.

    U.S. government experts also insist there's no threat to public health from the plume.


    There never is any danger, is there. Believe me, I can't say there is, I can't say there isn't, I'm no expert, but I find the anonymous diplomat a rather interesting spokesperson.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  11. #431
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hinky Hollow
    Posts
    14,702
    Japan raises accident severity level to 5 in nuclear crisis
    TOKYO, March 18 - (Kyodo)
    Japan raised the severity level of crisis-hit reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to 5 on an international scale of 7, the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, Japan's nuclear safety agency said Friday.

    http://english.kyodonews.jp/
    If there's hink....there must be stink.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to tehcloser For This Useful Post:


  13. #432
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by UFO View Post
    Exactly. I'm ASSUMING it will accumulate. Maybe someone here knows for sure.

    And they're not even close to stopping it. MOO.

    O/T: It seems like we lost all our members on the thread to Billie.
    Billie?

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  15. #433
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hinky Hollow
    Posts
    14,702
    Amano told reporters that the IAEA team will be dispatched ''in a couple of days'' near the troubled nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture to monitor radiation there.

    http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/79462.html
    If there's hink....there must be stink.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to tehcloser For This Useful Post:


  17. #434
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hinky Hollow
    Posts
    14,702
    Trident, the Hailey Dunn case, her mom Billie was arrested last night. Not charges about Hailey though.
    If there's hink....there must be stink.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to tehcloser For This Useful Post:


  19. #435
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by tehcloser View Post
    Amano told reporters that the IAEA team will be dispatched ''in a couple of days'' near the troubled nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture to monitor radiation there.

    http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/79462.html
    I'd take a "couple of days", or 3 or 4, myself, before I went near the place.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  21. #436


    <Hidehiko Nishiyama of Japan's nuclear safety agency said the rating was raised when officials realized that at least 3 percent of the fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant had been severely damaged, suggesting those reactor cores have partially melted down and thrown radioactivity into the environment.>

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/...pan_earthquake

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JustToSeeYouSmile For This Useful Post:


  23. #437
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by tehcloser View Post
    Japan raises accident severity level to 5 in nuclear crisis
    TOKYO, March 18 - (Kyodo)
    Japan raised the severity level of crisis-hit reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to 5 on an international scale of 7, the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, Japan's nuclear safety agency said Friday.

    http://english.kyodonews.jp/
    IMO, it's way past 5...

    But, unfortunately, we can't confirm the amount released because it's been "low", "high", "extremely high" and "not threatening to humans".

    Go figure?
    “The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” ~Bertrand Russell

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ScorpRising For This Useful Post:


  25. #438
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by JustToSeeYouSmile View Post


    <Hidehiko Nishiyama of Japan's nuclear safety agency said the rating was raised when officials realized that at least 3 percent of the fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant had been severely damaged, suggesting those reactor cores have partially melted down and thrown radioactivity into the environment.>

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/...pan_earthquake
    Quote Originally Posted by ScorpRising View Post
    IMO, it's way past 5...

    But, unfortunately, we can't confirm the amount released because it's been "low", "high", "extremely high" and "not threatening to humans".

    Go figure?
    Yep, the spin went on, like a bloom'in top - and the beat goes on.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  27. #439
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    168
    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/as...ex.html?hpt=T2

    On Thursday, one of the IAEA's top aides Graham Andrew said there appeared to be "no significant worsening" at the plant, located about 240 kilometers (150 miles) north of Tokyo.
    Is that because it's all heaeded east? Or because it can't get any more significant worse than it is? Yikes!

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:


  29. #440
    Daisyjane's Avatar
    Daisyjane is offline "All the clouds are clearing, and I think we're over the storm."
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    723

    two questions

    1. On the Today show this morning, they spoke of a plan to dump soil & sand on the rods, in effect burying them. But haven't we been told that it's dangerous to let the radiation into the ground, as it could then enter the water table??

    2. They've been spraying water onto the reactors, now they're laying/connecting power lines. Wouldn't that make for a 'shocking experience'?

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Daisyjane For This Useful Post:


  31. #441
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    9,084
    Okay, so #4 has fresh (as in brand spanking new this month) spent fuel rods in that pool that's dry... I think by morning over there (seems to be the time for them) we're going to hear of some new fires. jmo

  32. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Quiche For This Useful Post:


  33. #442
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Daisyjane View Post
    1. On the Today show this morning, they spoke of a plan to dump soil & sand on the rods, in effect burying them. But haven't we been told that it's dangerous to let the radiation into the ground, as it could then enter the water table??

    2. They've been spraying water onto the reactors, now they're laying/connecting power lines. Wouldn't that make for a 'shocking experience'?
    They buried Chernobyl by dumping concrete, and now sand over the thing. As for dangerous? Who knows? I wonder if Chernobyl is still reacting.

    As for shocking experience, I imagine water would turn to steam pretty quick and go into the atmosphere. After that, maybe it will work?

    My strictly uneducated guessing.

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  35. #443
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hinky Hollow
    Posts
    14,702
    Very low radiation detected on U.S. west coast: sources

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/low-radioac...15636-813.html


    Sources in Vienna........nice, how about some sources from HERE. Like oh, maybe one of those new monitors they set up for this?
    If there's hink....there must be stink.

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to tehcloser For This Useful Post:


  37. #444
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiche View Post
    Okay, so #4 has fresh (as in brand spanking new this month) spent fuel rods in that pool that's dry... I think by morning over there (seems to be the time for them) we're going to hear of some new fires. jmo
    #4 was down for refueling?

    Yippie! Fresh fuel!
    “The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” ~Bertrand Russell

  38. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ScorpRising For This Useful Post:


  39. #445
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    168
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

    appears that all of the models, however, are not based on measurements of radioactivity at the source and a projection of actual radioactive fallout in the U.S., but rather project a relative scale of radioactivity. Since Japanese authorities have said little about the amount of the releases at Fukushima, nobody can say how much radioactivity will hit California.
    The models show that even with prevailing easterly winds, the plumes whip back and forth over a wide area of Japan's east coast, Russia's Kamchatka peninsula and Alaska's Aleutian Islands. It is unknown whether nuclear fallout is hitting the vast wilderness of northeastern Asia.

    Of particular concern, however, is radiation emanating from Fukushima's No. 3 reactor. That reactor uses plutonium fuel, which poses a special health risk even in small quantities if the fallout were to reach U.S. shores.

  40. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:


  41. #446
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Daisyjane View Post
    1. On the Today show this morning, they spoke of a plan to dump soil & sand on the rods, in effect burying them. But haven't we been told that it's dangerous to let the radiation into the ground, as it could then enter the water table??

    2. They've been spraying water onto the reactors, now they're laying/connecting power lines. Wouldn't that make for a 'shocking experience'?
    1 - I don't think that's the brightest idea... But it wouldn't put the radiation into the ground so long as they just bury them in their pool and in the core... the reactors are not going to be "usable" again...

    2 - the lines should be insulated so it wouldn't be so shocking... It also depends on the voltage running through the lines, which I would expect to be high to power the commercial pumps.
    “The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” ~Bertrand Russell

  42. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ScorpRising For This Useful Post:


  43. #447
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by ScorpRising View Post
    1 - I don't think that's the brightest idea... But it wouldn't put the radiation into the ground so long as they just bury them in their pool and in the core... the reactors are not going to be "usable" again...

    2 - the lines should be insulated so it wouldn't be so shocking... It also depends on the voltage running through the lines, which I would expect to be high to power the commercial pumps.
    Quoting myself as I just raised another question... I know the area is evacuated so running a high voltage "extension cord" shouldn't be a danger to anyone... but did they do it right or just lay a big ole line on the ground for a half mile?
    “The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” ~Bertrand Russell

  44. The Following User Says Thank You to ScorpRising For This Useful Post:


  45. #448
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    168
    http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/pluto.htm

    Alot of mumbo jumbo but even I can understand this.

    In regard to the statement that 1 pound of Pu would kill everyone on Earth... One pound of plutonium would be enough to give 1.6E+9 persons a CDE of 50 rem (0.5 Sv) {which could result in 1.5E+5 additional cancers} *IF* and ONLY IF the material was pulverized into particles of respirable size and the material could be adequately dispersed in the atmosphere.
    Do we know how much plutonium is in reactor 3?

    MOO

  46. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:


  47. #449
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by ScorpRising View Post
    Quoting myself as I just raised another question... I know the area is evacuated so running a high voltage "extension cord" shouldn't be a danger to anyone... but did they do it right or just lay a big ole line on the ground for a half mile?
    What difference would that make? Yeah, if it isn't properly grounded, people could get electrocuted, but I'm assuming (you all know the saying) they are taking precautions against that. I don't understand the concern about the cable. They aren't going to stick a high-voltage cable directly into the reactor as far as I know - they are hooking up the water supply to cool it down.

    Am I wrong? I could be.

  48. The Following User Says Thank You to Trident For This Useful Post:


  49. #450
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78
    Thanks for getting me caught up with your posts.

    Here is what I have asked a few times (as have several of you)---since those spent fuel rods were stored above the containment vessel housing the reactor at the TOP of the buildings, what has happened to them at the 3 buildings (Units 1, 2 and 4 I believe??) that have no roofs? That video that was released yesterday showed a mangled mess of twisted metal and building framework. I find it VERY difficult to think that there has not been any damage to any of the spent fuel rod pools and therefore, the spent fuel rods themselves.

    I do not believe that we will get any accurate or truthful information from anyone b/c the news is bad---very bad. I have done what many of you have----stocked up on vital items and will live my life normally. But I do think that survival of the fittest is now the same as survival of the prepared. JMO.

  50. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lkhns For This Useful Post:


Page 18 of 55 FirstFirst ... 8910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Japan: 9.0 Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Reactor Developments #3
    By Dr. Know? in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 576
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 11:18 AM
  2. Japan: 9.0 Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Reactor Developments #2
    By nursebeeme in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1457
    Last Post: 03-16-2011, 05:32 PM
  3. Japan: Upgraded 8.8 earthquake - tsunami warning
    By Peliman in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1124
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 09:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •