Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 21, 2018 5:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2014 4:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Joshua Maurice wrote:
@jaro
Nice. Godzilla was a good touch.


Reminds me of a Gordon McDowell Youtube video out there with Kirk Sorensen mocking media representations of nuclear safety. He said something like "... and Godzilla will destroy Tokyo tomorrow! No, the proton will decay first."

I'm sure everyone here has seen this video at least once. I just wish I could find it again. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

The thought that any government can hide a seismic event like this is ridiculous. I remember a seismic recording station while in college at Iowa State University. This device was visible to anyone that walked down the hallway. It's a device not much bigger than a tall filing cabinet but it was set in the foundation of the building. I doubt that this was a unique device, there has to be all kinds of them at universities all over the world. If there was a nuclear explosion capable of producing a 5.0 magnitude seismic event below a nuclear reactor you can't hide that by making some phone calls to CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times.

Undergraduate students in Ames, Iowa have access to this information. The world does not have enough beer and marijuana (used medicinally, of course) to keep them quiet about this. If there really was a nuclear explosion at Fukushima someone would talk about it, and not just some website that no one reads. That's just one conspiracy theory I cannot comprehend.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2014 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
I am trying to figure out a good way to put the Fukushima radiation level in perspective. I came across an interesting article at Forbes:

The Fukushima Radiation Leak Is Equal To 76 Million Bananas

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... n-bananas/

The banana thing is the type of thing I am looking for, but it has issues of its own. For example, people claim that eating bananas does not increase your radioactivity level because your body maintains a relatively constant potassium level. Well, that may be true, but it misses the point. Whatever the case, I would rather not have to even deal with such distractions. Later in the same article I see this:

The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That’s ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world’s coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation.

This is the type of straightforward comparison I am looking for. If it is true, it clearly puts the issue to rest. But it is not referenced. Does any here know whether (1) the claims in the paragraph above are true, and (2) where I can get references for the figures? Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2014 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
Late last August I created this little graphic and posted it on facebook: It is my second-most-popular graphic ever, with nearly 1500 views and many "shares" - including some well-known orgs..... Maybe that might suit your needs ? (I'm open to other ideas/suggestions)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=513705358709371&set=pb.493843777362196.-2207520000.1388884185.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F1239246_513705358709371_1221085021_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F1235435_513705358709371_1221085021_n.jpg&size=1222%2C1049


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2014 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
jaro wrote:
Late last August I created this little graphic and posted it on facebook: It is my second-most-popular graphic ever, with nearly 1500 views and many "shares" - including some well-known orgs..... Maybe that might suit your needs ? (I'm open to other ideas/suggestions)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=513705358709371&set=pb.493843777362196.-2207520000.1388884185.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F1239246_513705358709371_1221085021_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F1235435_513705358709371_1221085021_n.jpg&size=1222%2C1049


That's a fabulous factoid, but do you have a reference for it? I like to back up these kinds of facts with references to reputable sites such as NOAA so they're not just an assertion to be taken on faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2014 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
Russ wrote:
....do you have a reference for it? I like to back up these kinds of facts with references to reputable sites such as NOAA so they're not just an assertion to be taken on faith.
Of course.
Some of the links are mentioned in the comments below my graphic.

For NORMS in the ocean I used these data:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm

For emissions from FD, the numbers are much less certain.
I used the ones from France's IRSN, but subsequently it appears they were too high by more than a factor of two: More detailed analysis reduces the total release estimate considerably.
Not that it makes much difference -- whether the ratio is 1 : 500,000 or 1 : 1,000,000 ....it's a very small fraction either way.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/5601/2 ... 1-2013.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2014 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
Jaro,
Personally, I liked you "solar vs. Fukushima Exclusion Zone" area comparison. Good stuff. Thanks.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2014 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
KitemanSA wrote:
Jaro,
Personally, I liked you "solar vs. Fukushima Exclusion Zone" area comparison. Good stuff. Thanks.


That sounds interesting. What is the link for that? Is it hidden in plain view somewhere?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2014 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
Russ wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Jaro,
Personally, I liked you "solar vs. Fukushima Exclusion Zone" area comparison. Good stuff. Thanks.


That sounds interesting. What is the link for that? Is it hidden in plain view somewhere?
Here it is:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 513%2C1683

Note also the version comparing the exclusion zone area to the James Bay hydroelectric project reservoirs, in the comments.

I also did one comparing to Germany's lignite mining areas here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 048%2C1258


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
jaro wrote:
For emissions from FD, the numbers are much less certain.
I used the ones from France's IRSN, but subsequently it appears they were too high by more than a factor of two: More detailed analysis reduces the total release estimate considerably.
Not that it makes much difference -- whether the ratio is 1 : 500,000 or 1 : 1,000,000 ....it's a very small fraction either way.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/5601/2 ... 1-2013.pdf


Thanks, but can you give me an actual link to a total Fukushima radioactivity release figure from a reputable source? I'm just looking for a ball-park figure. I couldn't find anything at IRSN.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
Russ wrote:
jaro wrote:


Thanks, but can you give me an actual link to a total Fukushima radioactivity release figure from a reputable source? I'm just looking for a ball-park figure. I couldn't find anything at IRSN.

Some text and a table from the linked pdf document:


Attachments:
Tsumune et al-One-year regional-scale simulation of 137Cs radioactivity_release_rates_abstract.jpg
Tsumune et al-One-year regional-scale simulation of 137Cs radioactivity_release_rates_abstract.jpg [ 648.44 KiB | Viewed 1964 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 2:28 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
jaro wrote:
Russ wrote:
jaro wrote:


Thanks, but can you give me an actual link to a total Fukushima radioactivity release figure from a reputable source? I'm just looking for a ball-park figure. I couldn't find anything at IRSN.

Some text and a table from the linked pdf document:


Thanks. Yes, I noticed those figures in the Conclusion too. That's good information, but I was hoping for something to link to so the reader can quickly verify the stated figure without reading through a scientific paper. Apparently that does not seem to be readily available from a major scientific organization.

Also, did I miss it, or does the paper say nothing about the natural level of radioactivity in the ocean? That information could provide useful insight to the reader. After all, a petabecqueral seems like a lot if you have no clue how much is already in the ocean. The purpose of a scientific paper is to provide knowledge and insight, not just data.

Also, I would still like to get verification and corroboration of the paragraph I posted earlier from the Forbes article claiming that the Fukushima radioactivity emissions are 1/10,000th of the radioactivity emissions from all coal power plants worldwide. If that's true it puts the whole situation into perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
I'd also appreciate a good resource for ocean radioactivity.

I've tried to work out some of it for myself, but it's a very complex picture. If, as is often stated, there's over 4.5 billion tons of uranium in solution in the oceans and about 32,000 tons added every year what does that mean for the concentration of radioactive material in the oceans, does the radium stay in solution for instance. From my rough calculations that would mean over 600 tons of radium from uranium decay, the Fukushima release would be a small fraction of that one source of a quite short lived and radioactive intense isotope.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 01, 2006 7:23 pm
Posts: 139
DougC wrote:
I'd also appreciate a good resource for ocean radioactivity.


Try http://www.webelements.com , and for the element you want, click on "Geology". There is very little radium. I believe that when uranium decays into thorium, it precipitates out.

_________________
Paul Studier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
ISU has a great webpage with natural radioactivity figures, Jaro mentioned it previously.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

There is also a section on ocean activity. K-40 dominates, with a calculated 14000 EBq in all oceans combined.

It's the same for soil in your garden, which has loads of K-40.

KCl is the most radioactive material you can buy in a store.

It's hard to get unbiased (even unhysteric) sources for F-D emissions. Most "sources" just rant endlessly how we're all going to die from F-D and blatantly obvious nonsense. Here's TEPCOs estimate.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-co ... _1870.html

1.8x 10e16Bq of Cs-134 and 137 and I-131 into the ocean. That's 0.018 EBq, adding 0.00013% to the natural potassium activity of the oceans. The I-131 is all gone, left is 0.05 EBq or so of Cs134 (half is decayed) and 137 (most still there), adding 0.0003% to the natural activity of the oceans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 06, 2014 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
There does seem to be a concerted effort going on to play up the risk that isn't supportable, I've seen some recent postings of stories about the #3 reactor going critical again. The steam that was supposedly the evidence for a newly critical melted core turned out to be from rainwater evaporating on contact with the still hot material.

The measurements of radioactivity off of Fukushima itself show that most materials released from the plant are soon diluted to low concentration, most well under 1 Bq/litre even a few kilometers off the coast. It's not the overall amount of material released that's of concern, it's the concentration people can reasonably be exposed to, and you could safely swim in the water not far off of Fukushima Dai-ichi.

The groundfish in the area off the plant are going to need to be monitored for a long time due to the particulate radioactive material from the original releases, but the cesium and other radionuclides going into the ocean in solution are going to be presented in such low concentration not far offshore that they're well below background levels.

So it's a local issue really and one that doesn't even approach Chernobyl which has had a far more limited effect than is widely presented.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group