EPThttp://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/00000000091.html
List of M5+ quakes updated in realtime, maybe this would be good for the opening post. there are many aftershocks
Crisis in Japan - Page 137
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Thread is about the various issues surrounding Japan in the aftermath of the recent earthquake. Don't bring the shit side of the internet to the thread, and post with the realization that this thread is very important, and very real, to your fellow members. Do not post speculative and unconfirmed news you saw on TV or anywhere else. Generally the more dramatic it sounds the less likely it's true. | ||
|
fanta[Rn]
Japan2465 Posts
http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/00000000091.html List of M5+ quakes updated in realtime, maybe this would be good for the opening post. there are many aftershocks | ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
Status of quake-stricken reactors at Fukushima nuclear power plant TOKYO, March 15, Kyodo The following is the known status as of Tuesday evening for each of the six reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture, crippled by Friday's magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami. -- Reactor No. 1 - Cooling failure, partial melting of core, hydrogen explosion, seawater pumped in. -- Reactor No. 2 - Cooling failure, seawater pumped in, fuel rods fully exposed temporarily, partial melting of core, damage to containment system. -- Reactor No. 3 - Cooling failure, partial melting of core, seawater pumped in, hydrogen explosion. -- Reactor No. 4 - Under maintenance when quake struck, fire caused by hydrogen explosion at pool holding spent fuel rods, pool water levels feared receding. -- Reactor No. 5 - Under maintenance when quake struck. -- Reactor No. 6 - Under maintenance when quake struck. ==Kyodo | ||
|
village_idiot
2436 Posts
| ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
-- In Ibaraki Prefecture, the amount of radiation at one stage reached 5 microsievert per hour, 100 times higher than usual -- In Kanagawa Prefecture, the radiation level shot up 10 times higher than usual. -- In Saitama, capital of Saitama Prefecture, the amount of radiation reached 1,222 nanosievert per hour, a figure about 40 times higher than usual. -- In Ichihara, Chiba Prefecture, the amount of radiation showed a two- to four-fold increase -- In Tochigi Prefecture's capital of Utsunomiya, the amount of radiation rose to 1.318 micro sievert per hour -- a figure 33 times bigger than usual | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:07 Dimagus wrote: NHK ustream: Radiation levels at the front gate of Fukushima I @9:00 11930 uSv (11.9 mSv) @15:30 519.4 uSv How can you measure radiation levels in Sv? Doesn't make sense for me. Sv is a unit for dose. So I'd expect radiation to need a division by a timescale. Something like Sv/h. | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:33 MasterOfChaos wrote: How can you measure radiation levels in Sv? Doesn't make sense for me. Sv is a unit for dose. So I'd expect radiation to need a division by a timescale. Something like Sv/h. Correct. I guess someone left if out, but its probabaly per hour. | ||
|
Zidane
United States1692 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:30 Dimagus wrote: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78135.html -- In Ibaraki Prefecture, the amount of radiation at one stage reached 5 microsievert per hour, 100 times higher than usual -- In Kanagawa Prefecture, the radiation level shot up 10 times higher than usual. -- In Saitama, capital of Saitama Prefecture, the amount of radiation reached 1,222 nanosievert per hour, a figure about 40 times higher than usual. -- In Ichihara, Chiba Prefecture, the amount of radiation showed a two- to four-fold increase -- In Tochigi Prefecture's capital of Utsunomiya, the amount of radiation rose to 1.318 micro sievert per hour -- a figure 33 times bigger than usual are you serious? my gf's family lives within ibaraki | ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:33 MasterOfChaos wrote: ls in Sv? Doesn't make sense for me. Sv is a unit for dose. So I'd expect radiation to need a division by a timescale. Something like Sv/h. They only gave the values, I'm pretty sure per hour is implied. On March 15 2011 19:38 Zidane wrote: are you serious? my gf's family lives within ibaraki None of the amounts they gave were worrisome in the slightest. Tell them to sleep well. | ||
|
fanta[Rn]
Japan2465 Posts
| ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27178 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:42 fanta[Rn] wrote: while it is 100 times higher than usual it's still LOW and not a human risk. Thank you. Again, context is important people. | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
The whole "20 times higher than normal radiation" is just one example. They just throw that number out without putting in context what that actually means to human exposed to it (see: nothing). | ||
|
naim
41 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:33 MasterOfChaos wrote: How can you measure radiation levels in Sv? Doesn't make sense for me. Sv is a unit for dose. So I'd expect radiation to need a division by a timescale. Something like Sv/h. 1 Sv = 1 J/kg Measuring in dose (Sv/h etc.) makes sense if you apply a timescale by standing in there. Edit: Sry, dont want to drag this into a unit discussion again... | ||
|
moochu
Australia374 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:30 Dimagus wrote: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78135.html -- In Ibaraki Prefecture, the amount of radiation at one stage reached 5 microsievert per hour, 100 times higher than usual -- In Kanagawa Prefecture, the radiation level shot up 10 times higher than usual. -- In Saitama, capital of Saitama Prefecture, the amount of radiation reached 1,222 nanosievert per hour, a figure about 40 times higher than usual. -- In Ichihara, Chiba Prefecture, the amount of radiation showed a two- to four-fold increase -- In Tochigi Prefecture's capital of Utsunomiya, the amount of radiation rose to 1.318 micro sievert per hour -- a figure 33 times bigger than usual and for reference how many times higher than usual does it have to be before it starts getting dangerous? | ||
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
On March 15 2011 18:01 zalz wrote: A meltdown is literally what the word implies, a reactor melts down. After that it's remains fall into a containment unit and it proceeds to be mostly harmless. If it could go through the containment unit or like Tsjernobyl has no containment unit then shit could hit the fence. Even then the make-up of the facility can determine wether the result is harmless, hazardous or explosive. The Japanese facility has a containment unit. The only purpose this thing has it to contain the reactor after a meltdown, if it could not do this it would be a ridiculous thing to have, it has been designed with only 1 purpose in mind so ofcourse it will do that. There is no risk of explosions, there will not be a deadly radiation cloud that proceeds to turn half the people into ghouls and the other half into super-mutants. This facility cannot explode in the same way your bike can't explode if you try to put the chain back on, it just doesn't. Worst case scenario is radiation polution in about 1.5 miles, that is as bad as it is going to get. Do you know what you are talking about? Do you know what worst case means? Your meltdown exaggeration is not very exact, i also pass on the ghuls part. Lets start with something like a best case scenario. After a most harmless meltdown, meaning the process stays stable at the very moment, the problems are on a stall. You have extreme engery heavy heat and pressure producing nuclear material, you cannot simply take and get rid off. You cannot even reach it. And thats nearly the best case! (considering situation atm, aka inner cooling fail, pressure release, hydrogene explosion, sea water outer shell cooling, which is totally giving up on the power plant and already out of textbook procedure, aka improvising) result: a small amount of nuclear fallout, by small leaks and pressure handling processes. about a year of spreading material, non leathal dosis Lets get a bit darker, the meltdown melts the nuclear material into a slurry blop, this can get so hot in can melt through the containment unit. (the unit of course also chernobyl had, so you are wrong again, stop guessing, thx) so following gravity the nuclear super hot blob leaves into the earth, maybe producing gases, nuclear fallout can get into air, spread by wind. <>still way way less dangerous than chernobyl where a big explosion torpedoed masses of high risk nuclear material very high into the atmosphere.<> result: high dosis spreading the first days, there need to be containment handling covering the processing material. 20-30 km around the area should be evacuated immidiately. 2km radius is wasteland for decades. Lets get to worst case: Meltdown reaches a critical mass, critical temperature, you can have an actual nuclear bomb like explosion. The chances are low, still this is the worst case. Mostly because it yet didnt happen, it is unlikely. resul: you know hiroshima imagine this is guessing, realistic but still guessing to get an idea. you cannot be sure, because you cannot test out of control accidents very well. thats the reason why japan energy corp cannot tell much. they just cannot follow a rule. and japan is ruled by obeying rules, following authorities. On March 15 2011 18:18 Arokh wrote: zalz, you seem to know about this stuff. I have a followup question about the meltdown. If a reactor can not be cooled sufficiently and the meltdwon starts, isn't there a possibility, that the cooling water (at the moment sea-water) will react with the super hot control-rods and this will produce hydrogen (ionide + h2o = h2 ionideoxide)? This hydrogen with the combination of oxygen could then explode inside the containment and possibly damage the whole thing, making it possible for certain (little bigger) amounts of radiation to escape? Is the containmenet strong enough to resist an inside hydrogen explosion? Thanks in advance for correcting and clearing things up! That is exactly what happened in 3 reactors already, uncooled reactors produced hydrogene, that was released to the outer shell to reduce pressure and blasted away the outer building. How much of a hydrogene explosion the inner containment is capable? good question, i hope this will not be tested. The japan authorities had a reason to release the gas to explode outside the containment. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
fanta[Rn]
Japan2465 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:47 moochu wrote: and for reference how many times higher than usual does it have to be before it starts getting dangerous? http://twitpic.com/49mm4l look at this please | ||
|
dump
Japan514 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:49 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Lets get to worst case: Meltdown reaches a critical mass, critical temperature, you can have an actual nuclear bomb like explosion. The chances are low, still this is the worst case. Mostly because it yet didnt happen, it is unlikely. resul: you know hiroshima That's a huge claim. Explain, please. | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:47 moochu wrote: and for reference how many times higher than usual does it have to be before it starts getting dangerous? I hate to use Wikipedia, but take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Exposure_levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Symptom_Benchmarks Seems like it's no big deal at all right now. Remember that 1.3 mSv is only 0.0013 Sv | ||
|
sharky246
1197 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:22 Dimagus wrote: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78230.html Status of quake-stricken reactors at Fukushima nuclear power plant TOKYO, March 15, Kyodo The following is the known status as of Tuesday evening for each of the six reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture, crippled by Friday's magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami. -- Reactor No. 1 - Cooling failure, partial melting of core, hydrogen explosion, seawater pumped in. -- Reactor No. 2 - Cooling failure, seawater pumped in, fuel rods fully exposed temporarily, partial melting of core, damage to containment system. -- Reactor No. 3 - Cooling failure, partial melting of core, seawater pumped in, hydrogen explosion. -- Reactor No. 4 - Under maintenance when quake struck, fire caused by hydrogen explosion at pool holding spent fuel rods, pool water levels feared receding. -- Reactor No. 5 - Under maintenance when quake struck. -- Reactor No. 6 - Under maintenance when quake struck. ==Kyodo If a meltdown occurred on all these reactors (hopefully not), how far is the radiation going to spread? | ||
|
Maggeus
France277 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:49 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Lets get to worst case: Meltdown reaches a critical mass, critical temperature, you can have an actual nuclear bomb like explosion. The chances are low, still this is the worst case. Mostly because it yet didnt happen, it is unlikely. resul: you know hiroshima It's not unlikely : a nuclear reactor is not, and will never be, a nuclear bomb. It's absolutely impossible, mainly because the % of U235 is a lot less in a civil plant than in a nuclear bomb (Civil : max 5 to 10%, and really the MAX possible, and a nuclear bomb : 99%.) It's physically impossible. So please stop sprouting nonsense when you don't know a thing in that field. This is not helping. | ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:47 moochu wrote: and for reference how many times higher than usual does it have to be before it starts getting dangerous? Making me do math cause the news sources won't.. GDI.. (According to the article 0.05 uSv/hr is around normal) 20,000,000 times normal and you will be experiencing 1 Sv/hr, which means vomiting and you should immediately seek medical attention. I will arbitrarily say if it isn't over 100,000 times normal, you're probably okay. | ||
| ||
