|
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. |
On March 17 2011 07:20 Bajadulce wrote:
not to be trivial, but those 2 pictures of the road aren't even from the same perspective? The one on the right is taken MUCH further back as evident by the green sign on the left and the trees to the right. The right road in the foreground is still the old one?
The pictures are adjusted to appear even more impressive. They made it seem most of the destroyed road is already complete, that would be impossible. The first picture is the part with gravel on the second picture, that is still under construction. It is still amanzing and much faster than I would think possible, and probally wouldnt happen anywhere else in the world, but it's definatelly misleading.
|
On March 17 2011 07:29 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 01:51 WhiteDog wrote:On March 17 2011 01:03 IntoTheWow wrote:
From what I've been reading, the French are making a big deal about this cause the Japanese bought reactors from the US, instead of the Framatome/Areva models. At first when I read that, I thought you were a bad guy attacking my country, was starting to get all blue white red. But seriously, I think you are right, when we know the link between our politician, especially our midget president, and the big french company such as Areva (society mainly known for nuclear power). Sarkozy already tried to sell various stuff to other country, like that Rafale that nobody want. Hehe, sorry I mean no offense. Just a matter of corporation and interests. Let's not forget the type of electricity we use (alternate) for domestic use was decided based on the electric chair and "flashy time" in it's time. Not due to technical studies in it's feasibility. In the end, a corporation is going to try and make the most out of any situation.
not at all...
we use alternate current because we can use transformers to raise the voltage and therefore reduce transmission losses. in the begining of the 20th century there wasnt any good way to raise dc voltages, and so the transmission losses were a lot higher.
|
On March 17 2011 07:36 Doomgiver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:29 IntoTheWow wrote:On March 17 2011 01:51 WhiteDog wrote:On March 17 2011 01:03 IntoTheWow wrote:
From what I've been reading, the French are making a big deal about this cause the Japanese bought reactors from the US, instead of the Framatome/Areva models. At first when I read that, I thought you were a bad guy attacking my country, was starting to get all blue white red. But seriously, I think you are right, when we know the link between our politician, especially our midget president, and the big french company such as Areva (society mainly known for nuclear power). Sarkozy already tried to sell various stuff to other country, like that Rafale that nobody want. Hehe, sorry I mean no offense. Just a matter of corporation and interests. Let's not forget the type of electricity we use (alternate) for domestic use was decided based on the electric chair and "flashy time" in it's time. Not due to technical studies in it's feasibility. In the end, a corporation is going to try and make the most out of any situation. not at all... we use alternate current because we can use transformers to raise the voltage and therefore reduce transmission losses. in the begining of the 20th century there wasnt any good way to raise dc voltages, and so the transmission losses were a lot higher.
+ Show Spoiler +No one really cares about what kind of electricity we use in this thread, seriously.
|
On March 17 2011 07:27 dEphria wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:12 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2011 07:04 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 17 2011 05:17 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 04:50 Klive5ive wrote:On March 17 2011 03:46 dump wrote:On March 17 2011 03:42 hifriend wrote:On March 17 2011 02:46 Sorkoas wrote:At Swedish TV they were interviewing some reindeer owners who apparently are seriously worried about nuclear waste reaching us from Japan. First I was laughing but then it made me rage when I realized she wasn't even kidding. Really, WTF? http://playrapport.se/#/video/2362105 That sounds kinda fucked up that they would even bring that up on the news in this situation. However, chernobyl completely crashed our raindeer market. The raindeer is a consumer of a certain lichen that is prone to absorb nutrients from air/rain and those became contaminated after chernobyl. The raindeer is extremely important for the sami population of sweden. edit: realistically it should have 0 impact so it's pretty stupid either way, but that's probably the reason they were concerned. People are buying iodide tablets like mad here in Vancouver. It's pretty frustrating how bad the fear mongering has been so far. It's just like Chernobyl. The UN nuclear watchdog said the mental health conditions surrounding the fear and paranoia was a bigger problem than the actual radiation itself. They estimated 4,400 deaths from the worse Nuclear disaster ever. This earthquake is estimated to have killed over 10,000. Why the hell everyone is talking about the dam powerstations when people are still trapped under rubble is just beyond me. It's sensationalist bullshit. The estimated number of deaths attributed to Chernobyl is actually estimated to be over 100,000 if you include all causes such as cancers that would have developed years after. The severity of radiation from nuclear fallout is tended to be downplayed because it does not have the initial death toll associated with other disasters such as oil spills and the like. The effects of radiation instead usually manifest much later on in time. To underexagerate the number of deaths from Chernobyl at 5,000 is completely inaccurate. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. The only people claiming over 100,000 deaths in Chernobyl are Greenpeace. Thyroid cancer is the #1 result of radioactive fallout... And the numbers don't support your claims. There's been ~6,000 cases of thyroid cancer since the disaster across Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia - which were the areas exposed to the majority of the fallout. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. I don't think it's bad to conclude that minor increases in radiation in the surrounding areas is a catastrophe. Can't say the same for the health of the workers at the plant, though. It wan't greenpeace I was referring to. The Belarus and Russian national academies of science estimate the deaths so far from Chernobyl to be closer to 100,000 with many more cases of cancers. Also the Ukranian national commission for radiation protection has estimates over 500,000 (I agree these are a bit extreme). However, the UN estimates of 5,000 seem to conflict to drastically with reports from the areas that directly experienced the disaster to rule them out or to conclude that UN findings are more valid. These conclusions are coming from reputable scientific organisations with no reason to fabricate information. Please provide those sources... I recently attended a lecture with one of the leading radiologists here in DK where he went through the data from Chernobyl and he ended up with concluding that leukemia and thyroid cancer where the only types of cancer where you would see an increased risk and that it was actually VERY minimal, he ended up with @ 5k deaths which could be attributed to Chernobyl. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.htmlEstimation of half a million cancer deaths in direct correlation to the tchernobyl incident.
Which is only true if the author's Linear No-Threshold Model is accurate. It is, at best, a controversial theory. It would also require areas with elevated levels of background radiation (Say, the state of... Colorado) to result in statistically significant increases in cancer deaths - which is not the case.
|
Took a look at some before and after pictures. I've heard a lot about the crisis on the radio in the morning when I get up but after seeing those pictures I just couldn't believe it. Terrible stuff.
|
On March 17 2011 07:27 dEphria wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:12 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2011 07:04 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 17 2011 05:17 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 04:50 Klive5ive wrote:On March 17 2011 03:46 dump wrote:On March 17 2011 03:42 hifriend wrote:On March 17 2011 02:46 Sorkoas wrote:At Swedish TV they were interviewing some reindeer owners who apparently are seriously worried about nuclear waste reaching us from Japan. First I was laughing but then it made me rage when I realized she wasn't even kidding. Really, WTF? http://playrapport.se/#/video/2362105 That sounds kinda fucked up that they would even bring that up on the news in this situation. However, chernobyl completely crashed our raindeer market. The raindeer is a consumer of a certain lichen that is prone to absorb nutrients from air/rain and those became contaminated after chernobyl. The raindeer is extremely important for the sami population of sweden. edit: realistically it should have 0 impact so it's pretty stupid either way, but that's probably the reason they were concerned. People are buying iodide tablets like mad here in Vancouver. It's pretty frustrating how bad the fear mongering has been so far. It's just like Chernobyl. The UN nuclear watchdog said the mental health conditions surrounding the fear and paranoia was a bigger problem than the actual radiation itself. They estimated 4,400 deaths from the worse Nuclear disaster ever. This earthquake is estimated to have killed over 10,000. Why the hell everyone is talking about the dam powerstations when people are still trapped under rubble is just beyond me. It's sensationalist bullshit. The estimated number of deaths attributed to Chernobyl is actually estimated to be over 100,000 if you include all causes such as cancers that would have developed years after. The severity of radiation from nuclear fallout is tended to be downplayed because it does not have the initial death toll associated with other disasters such as oil spills and the like. The effects of radiation instead usually manifest much later on in time. To underexagerate the number of deaths from Chernobyl at 5,000 is completely inaccurate. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. The only people claiming over 100,000 deaths in Chernobyl are Greenpeace. Thyroid cancer is the #1 result of radioactive fallout... And the numbers don't support your claims. There's been ~6,000 cases of thyroid cancer since the disaster across Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia - which were the areas exposed to the majority of the fallout. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. I don't think it's bad to conclude that minor increases in radiation in the surrounding areas is a catastrophe. Can't say the same for the health of the workers at the plant, though. It wan't greenpeace I was referring to. The Belarus and Russian national academies of science estimate the deaths so far from Chernobyl to be closer to 100,000 with many more cases of cancers. Also the Ukranian national commission for radiation protection has estimates over 500,000 (I agree these are a bit extreme). However, the UN estimates of 5,000 seem to conflict to drastically with reports from the areas that directly experienced the disaster to rule them out or to conclude that UN findings are more valid. These conclusions are coming from reputable scientific organisations with no reason to fabricate information. Please provide those sources... I recently attended a lecture with one of the leading radiologists here in DK where he went through the data from Chernobyl and he ended up with concluding that leukemia and thyroid cancer where the only types of cancer where you would see an increased risk and that it was actually VERY minimal, he ended up with @ 5k deaths which could be attributed to Chernobyl. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.htmlEstimation of half a million cancer deaths in direct correlation to the tchernobyl incident.
When I asked for sources, I asked for links like this one, but I had hoped that you would actually provide something more uhm - substantial...
There is an article in science which references a meeting held in Vienna where 100 scientists got together in 2005 to assess the final death toll:
http://www.sciencemag.org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/content/309/5741/1663.long
Or the pubmed link (same article):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150986
+ Show Spoiler [excerpt from article] +VIENNA, AUSTRIA—A study released this week predicts that 4000 people or even more will die from cancers caused by the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear accident, a figure that dwarfs the 50 known deaths linked to the disaster so far. The report,* compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, a joint effort of eight United Nations agencies and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, also highlights the thousands who are suffering a variety of mental health problems since the accident.
The meltdown of one of the reactors at the Chornobyl power plant in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 released approximately 50 tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, contaminating an area inhabited by 5 million people. Because the most pernicious contamination was radioactive iodine-131, which lodges in the thyroid, most of the casualties are expected to succumb to thyroid cancer, which typically takes 25 years or more to show up.
Over the 19 years since the accident, estimates of the final death toll from radiation-induced cancer have ranged from zero to tens of thousands. The panel of 100 scientists involved in the Chernobyl Forum reduced that uncertainty by reviewing all available data and discounting studies that were not sufficiently rigorous. “But that only considers the 600,000 people living in the most exposed areas. [The total] could double to 8000 if you also consider people around that area,” says forum member Fred Mettler, a radiologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
Radiation biologist Mikhail Balonov was part of the Soviet team rushed in to assess Chornobyl in 1986, and he says his team “also predicted 4000 deaths. But our conclusions were classified.” The forum's 600-page report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) here on 5 September, also echoes initial predictions that the radiation will have no effect on fertility or the frequency of birth defects in the second generation. “Luckily, the exposure was too low for that,” says Balonov, who now heads IAEA's Radioactive Discharges Unit. Other effects of the radiation are either too subtle or have not yet been detected.
I would REALLY like to see those russian sources, but perhaps we should take this discussion to PM so we don't detract from the thread. The tsunami is by far the greatest problem at this point in time and frankly, the nuclear threat is blown out of proportions by the press (just realised the terrible pun, wasn't intended).
EDIT: Regarding the no-threshold linear model: It is actually a widely accepted and agreed upon model. Background radiation just plays such a minor role in cancergenesis that you wouldn't be able to see it, even if you included all of Colorado. Other factors like smoking, sunbathing, drinking, diabetes etc. are way more influential, making it impossible to see the minor impact that background radiation has.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12766930
Increasing alarm has been expressed in the US about the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan.
Greg Jaczko, chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), said attempts to cool reactors with sea water and prevent them from melting down appeared to be failing.
|
On March 17 2011 07:56 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:27 dEphria wrote:On March 17 2011 07:12 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2011 07:04 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 17 2011 05:17 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 04:50 Klive5ive wrote:On March 17 2011 03:46 dump wrote:On March 17 2011 03:42 hifriend wrote:On March 17 2011 02:46 Sorkoas wrote:At Swedish TV they were interviewing some reindeer owners who apparently are seriously worried about nuclear waste reaching us from Japan. First I was laughing but then it made me rage when I realized she wasn't even kidding. Really, WTF? http://playrapport.se/#/video/2362105 That sounds kinda fucked up that they would even bring that up on the news in this situation. However, chernobyl completely crashed our raindeer market. The raindeer is a consumer of a certain lichen that is prone to absorb nutrients from air/rain and those became contaminated after chernobyl. The raindeer is extremely important for the sami population of sweden. edit: realistically it should have 0 impact so it's pretty stupid either way, but that's probably the reason they were concerned. People are buying iodide tablets like mad here in Vancouver. It's pretty frustrating how bad the fear mongering has been so far. It's just like Chernobyl. The UN nuclear watchdog said the mental health conditions surrounding the fear and paranoia was a bigger problem than the actual radiation itself. They estimated 4,400 deaths from the worse Nuclear disaster ever. This earthquake is estimated to have killed over 10,000. Why the hell everyone is talking about the dam powerstations when people are still trapped under rubble is just beyond me. It's sensationalist bullshit. The estimated number of deaths attributed to Chernobyl is actually estimated to be over 100,000 if you include all causes such as cancers that would have developed years after. The severity of radiation from nuclear fallout is tended to be downplayed because it does not have the initial death toll associated with other disasters such as oil spills and the like. The effects of radiation instead usually manifest much later on in time. To underexagerate the number of deaths from Chernobyl at 5,000 is completely inaccurate. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. The only people claiming over 100,000 deaths in Chernobyl are Greenpeace. Thyroid cancer is the #1 result of radioactive fallout... And the numbers don't support your claims. There's been ~6,000 cases of thyroid cancer since the disaster across Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia - which were the areas exposed to the majority of the fallout. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. I don't think it's bad to conclude that minor increases in radiation in the surrounding areas is a catastrophe. Can't say the same for the health of the workers at the plant, though. It wan't greenpeace I was referring to. The Belarus and Russian national academies of science estimate the deaths so far from Chernobyl to be closer to 100,000 with many more cases of cancers. Also the Ukranian national commission for radiation protection has estimates over 500,000 (I agree these are a bit extreme). However, the UN estimates of 5,000 seem to conflict to drastically with reports from the areas that directly experienced the disaster to rule them out or to conclude that UN findings are more valid. These conclusions are coming from reputable scientific organisations with no reason to fabricate information. Please provide those sources... I recently attended a lecture with one of the leading radiologists here in DK where he went through the data from Chernobyl and he ended up with concluding that leukemia and thyroid cancer where the only types of cancer where you would see an increased risk and that it was actually VERY minimal, he ended up with @ 5k deaths which could be attributed to Chernobyl. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.htmlEstimation of half a million cancer deaths in direct correlation to the tchernobyl incident. When I asked for sources, I asked for links like this one, but I had hoped that you would actually provide something more uhm - substantial... There is an article in science which references a meeting held in Vienna where 100 scientists got together in 2005 to assess the final death toll: http://www.sciencemag.org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/content/309/5741/1663.longOr the pubmed link (same article): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150986+ Show Spoiler [excerpt from article] +VIENNA, AUSTRIA—A study released this week predicts that 4000 people or even more will die from cancers caused by the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear accident, a figure that dwarfs the 50 known deaths linked to the disaster so far. The report,* compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, a joint effort of eight United Nations agencies and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, also highlights the thousands who are suffering a variety of mental health problems since the accident.
The meltdown of one of the reactors at the Chornobyl power plant in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 released approximately 50 tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, contaminating an area inhabited by 5 million people. Because the most pernicious contamination was radioactive iodine-131, which lodges in the thyroid, most of the casualties are expected to succumb to thyroid cancer, which typically takes 25 years or more to show up.
Over the 19 years since the accident, estimates of the final death toll from radiation-induced cancer have ranged from zero to tens of thousands. The panel of 100 scientists involved in the Chernobyl Forum reduced that uncertainty by reviewing all available data and discounting studies that were not sufficiently rigorous. “But that only considers the 600,000 people living in the most exposed areas. [The total] could double to 8000 if you also consider people around that area,” says forum member Fred Mettler, a radiologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
Radiation biologist Mikhail Balonov was part of the Soviet team rushed in to assess Chornobyl in 1986, and he says his team “also predicted 4000 deaths. But our conclusions were classified.” The forum's 600-page report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) here on 5 September, also echoes initial predictions that the radiation will have no effect on fertility or the frequency of birth defects in the second generation. “Luckily, the exposure was too low for that,” says Balonov, who now heads IAEA's Radioactive Discharges Unit. Other effects of the radiation are either too subtle or have not yet been detected. I would REALLY like to see those russian sources, but perhaps we should take this discussion to PM so we don't detract from the thread. The tsunami is by far the greatest problem at this point in time and frankly, the nuclear threat is blown out of proportions by the press (just realised the terrible pun, wasn't intended).
Its not always possible to provide direct link sources as I don't like to use wikipedia. The sources I listed require logins and subscriptions. I could find secondary websites with the same info but it would not be as legitimate.
|
On March 17 2011 08:05 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:56 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2011 07:27 dEphria wrote:On March 17 2011 07:12 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2011 07:04 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 17 2011 05:17 Aurocaido wrote:On March 17 2011 04:50 Klive5ive wrote:On March 17 2011 03:46 dump wrote:On March 17 2011 03:42 hifriend wrote:
[quote]
That sounds kinda fucked up that they would even bring that up on the news in this situation.
However, chernobyl completely crashed our raindeer market. The raindeer is a consumer of a certain lichen that is prone to absorb nutrients from air/rain and those became contaminated after chernobyl.
The raindeer is extremely important for the sami population of sweden.
edit: realistically it should have 0 impact so it's pretty stupid either way, but that's probably the reason they were concerned. People are buying iodide tablets like mad here in Vancouver. It's pretty frustrating how bad the fear mongering has been so far. It's just like Chernobyl. The UN nuclear watchdog said the mental health conditions surrounding the fear and paranoia was a bigger problem than the actual radiation itself. They estimated 4,400 deaths from the worse Nuclear disaster ever. This earthquake is estimated to have killed over 10,000. Why the hell everyone is talking about the dam powerstations when people are still trapped under rubble is just beyond me. It's sensationalist bullshit. The estimated number of deaths attributed to Chernobyl is actually estimated to be over 100,000 if you include all causes such as cancers that would have developed years after. The severity of radiation from nuclear fallout is tended to be downplayed because it does not have the initial death toll associated with other disasters such as oil spills and the like. The effects of radiation instead usually manifest much later on in time. To underexagerate the number of deaths from Chernobyl at 5,000 is completely inaccurate. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. The only people claiming over 100,000 deaths in Chernobyl are Greenpeace. Thyroid cancer is the #1 result of radioactive fallout... And the numbers don't support your claims. There's been ~6,000 cases of thyroid cancer since the disaster across Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia - which were the areas exposed to the majority of the fallout. That said, to assess the severity of the disaster currently taking place at Fukushima as being overblown before it has even been resolved and without taking into account the long term health affects of radiation is the opposite of blatant fear mongering, its blatant fear supression for the sake of maintaining a semblence of order. Both are bad. I don't think it's bad to conclude that minor increases in radiation in the surrounding areas is a catastrophe. Can't say the same for the health of the workers at the plant, though. It wan't greenpeace I was referring to. The Belarus and Russian national academies of science estimate the deaths so far from Chernobyl to be closer to 100,000 with many more cases of cancers. Also the Ukranian national commission for radiation protection has estimates over 500,000 (I agree these are a bit extreme). However, the UN estimates of 5,000 seem to conflict to drastically with reports from the areas that directly experienced the disaster to rule them out or to conclude that UN findings are more valid. These conclusions are coming from reputable scientific organisations with no reason to fabricate information. Please provide those sources... I recently attended a lecture with one of the leading radiologists here in DK where he went through the data from Chernobyl and he ended up with concluding that leukemia and thyroid cancer where the only types of cancer where you would see an increased risk and that it was actually VERY minimal, he ended up with @ 5k deaths which could be attributed to Chernobyl. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.htmlEstimation of half a million cancer deaths in direct correlation to the tchernobyl incident. When I asked for sources, I asked for links like this one, but I had hoped that you would actually provide something more uhm - substantial... There is an article in science which references a meeting held in Vienna where 100 scientists got together in 2005 to assess the final death toll: http://www.sciencemag.org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/content/309/5741/1663.longOr the pubmed link (same article): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150986+ Show Spoiler [excerpt from article] +VIENNA, AUSTRIA—A study released this week predicts that 4000 people or even more will die from cancers caused by the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear accident, a figure that dwarfs the 50 known deaths linked to the disaster so far. The report,* compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, a joint effort of eight United Nations agencies and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, also highlights the thousands who are suffering a variety of mental health problems since the accident.
The meltdown of one of the reactors at the Chornobyl power plant in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 released approximately 50 tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, contaminating an area inhabited by 5 million people. Because the most pernicious contamination was radioactive iodine-131, which lodges in the thyroid, most of the casualties are expected to succumb to thyroid cancer, which typically takes 25 years or more to show up.
Over the 19 years since the accident, estimates of the final death toll from radiation-induced cancer have ranged from zero to tens of thousands. The panel of 100 scientists involved in the Chernobyl Forum reduced that uncertainty by reviewing all available data and discounting studies that were not sufficiently rigorous. “But that only considers the 600,000 people living in the most exposed areas. [The total] could double to 8000 if you also consider people around that area,” says forum member Fred Mettler, a radiologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
Radiation biologist Mikhail Balonov was part of the Soviet team rushed in to assess Chornobyl in 1986, and he says his team “also predicted 4000 deaths. But our conclusions were classified.” The forum's 600-page report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) here on 5 September, also echoes initial predictions that the radiation will have no effect on fertility or the frequency of birth defects in the second generation. “Luckily, the exposure was too low for that,” says Balonov, who now heads IAEA's Radioactive Discharges Unit. Other effects of the radiation are either too subtle or have not yet been detected. I would REALLY like to see those russian sources, but perhaps we should take this discussion to PM so we don't detract from the thread. The tsunami is by far the greatest problem at this point in time and frankly, the nuclear threat is blown out of proportions by the press (just realised the terrible pun, wasn't intended). Its not always possible to provide direct link sources as I don't like to use wikipedia. The sources I listed require logins and subscriptions. I could find secondary websites with the same info but it would not be as legitimate.
Provide me the links - I've got acces to just about any scientific source out there...
|
Osaka27173 Posts
Talk about Chernobyl elsewhere please.
|
I really believe this kind of discussion is the reason the other thread was created.
Since everyone seems to be bragging about how stupid their leaders are, I would like to raise the stakes a little bit.
The mayor of a small town in the coast of southern Brazil, Capão da Canoa, cancelled classes of the public school system because he heard there was a risk of the tsunami reaching South America. He probally failed to realize that Brazil is facing the wrong ocean. Another politician latter said that the actual reason was because heavy rains were predicted to that day, but I'm not sure many people would believe that. Here is the link in portuguese.
http://zerohora.clicrbs.com.br/zerohora/jsp/default.jsp?uf=1&local=1§ion=Geral&newsID=a3236927.xml
He is not a president or anything, it is a pretty small town, but damn, that's not political motivation or lack of understanding on a higher level of physics, that's plain ignorance on what a 10 year old should know.
|
Russian Federation1894 Posts
GMT time
17:30
DJ: US Energy Chief Says 'Partial Meltdown' Occurred At Japanese Plant
------------------------------
17:42
DJ: US: Americans Within 80 Km Of Japan Nuclear Plant Should Evacuate
------------------------------
18:51
DJ: British Foreign Ministry Recommends U.K. Nationals Consider Leaving Tokyo
------------------------------
18:53
DJ: Tepco Close To Completing New Power Line To Nuclear Plant -AP
------------------------------
18:54
DJ: New Power Line Would Revive Water Pumps To Help Cooling Efforts -AP
------------------------------
19:26
DJ: UPDATE: US Energy Chief Says 'Partial Meltdown' At Japanese Plant
------------------------------
23:12
DJ: Australia Urges Citizens To Consider Departing Tokyo
------------------------------
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On March 17 2011 03:24 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 01:20 IntoTheWow wrote:
I don't think that really matters.
It just gives into the:
French reactors -> safe
Non-french reactors -> not safe
logic. That is definitly not the real reason. Basicly the Green party is using the accident because they have been saying that nuclear power is dangerous since at least three decades, so they want to make a national debate about energies ( they want to promote renevable energies ). On the other hand, the government is using the accident because the current situation in Libya is extremely embarrassing for Sarkozy. His attempts to create a no-fly zone have been a complete failure and he didn't send help to the rebels ( even after recognizing their council lol ). Now that the rebellion will get crushed, they don't want people to talk Libya. Oh and should i mention that Saïf Al-Islam Ghadaffi called him a "clown" ? Really embarrassing indeed. Especially for a president at an all time low in the polls ( elections next year ) who wanted to regain some credibility as a leader. Then of course there are all the journalists who are trying to get more audience with sensationalism. Nobody here is saying that it has happened because non-French reactors aren't as safe. The nuclear lobby is kinda annoyed by the bad publicity to be honest and really i don't see them bragging about "superior reactors". Areva is pretty much quiet lol. Low profile ~
Ah, thanks. I got the feeling of the "safe vs not safe" from reading some sites earlier. Seems like they were wrong :p
|
One of the rare news articles that is not about the situation at the nuclear power plants, but about the actual crisis and the hardships of the people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/japan-quake-tsunami-freezing-temperatures-relief
After surviving the earthquake and the following tsunami, now the people are starving and even freezing to death. It just never stops for those poor people.
To quote the beginning of the article:
Freezing winds, hail storms and thick snow are the latest threats to 430,000 beleaguered survivors of northern Japan's week-long cascade of disasters. After a massive earthquake, devastating tsunami and nuclear crisis, many people made homeless are now facing icy weather, with temperatures forecast to plunge to –5C (23F).
The risk of a deadly humanitarian crisis is rising among refugees lacking food, fuel and blankets, even as the world's attention is transfixed by the unfolding nuclear emergency at the Fukushima plant.
The official death toll has risen to 4,255, with 8,194 people registered as missing. Many more are likely to be added as bodies are found in the mud and rubble of the tsunami aftermath. Morgues have run out of space so schools have been used instead. Officials are struggling to identify the dead and deal with their remains.
|
Russian Federation1894 Posts
GMT time
23:15
DJMN: Australia Evacuating Dependents Of Govt Officials In Tokyo
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
March 16, 2011 19:15 ET (23:15 GMT)
|
On March 17 2011 08:07 SKC wrote:I really believe this kind of discussion is the reason the other thread was created. Since everyone seems to be bragging about how stupid their leaders are, I would like to raise the stakes a little bit. The mayor of a small town in the coast of southern Brazil, Capão da Canoa, cancelled classes of the public school system because he heard there was a risk of the tsunami reaching South America. He probally failed to realize that Brazil is facing the wrong ocean. Another politician latter said that the actual reason was because heavy rains were predicted to that day, but I'm not sure many people would believe that. Here is the link in portuguese. http://zerohora.clicrbs.com.br/zerohora/jsp/default.jsp?uf=1&local=1§ion=Geral&newsID=a3236927.xmlHe is not a president or anything, it is a pretty small town, but damn, that's not political motivation or lack of understanding on a higher level of physics, that's plain ignorance on what a 10 year old should know.
OMG, that mayor. How.Fucking.Stupid can you be? Anyways, im pretty sure that a meltdown is imminent as the BBC normally tries to play down the things that arnt certain to happen, instead, they are telling all British nationals north of Tokyo to leave the area immediately.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On March 17 2011 07:36 Doomgiver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:29 IntoTheWow wrote:On March 17 2011 01:51 WhiteDog wrote:On March 17 2011 01:03 IntoTheWow wrote:
From what I've been reading, the French are making a big deal about this cause the Japanese bought reactors from the US, instead of the Framatome/Areva models. At first when I read that, I thought you were a bad guy attacking my country, was starting to get all blue white red. But seriously, I think you are right, when we know the link between our politician, especially our midget president, and the big french company such as Areva (society mainly known for nuclear power). Sarkozy already tried to sell various stuff to other country, like that Rafale that nobody want. Hehe, sorry I mean no offense. Just a matter of corporation and interests. Let's not forget the type of electricity we use (alternate) for domestic use was decided based on the electric chair and "flashy time" in it's time. Not due to technical studies in it's feasibility. In the end, a corporation is going to try and make the most out of any situation. not at all... we use alternate current because we can use transformers to raise the voltage and therefore reduce transmission losses. in the begining of the 20th century there wasnt any good way to raise dc voltages, and so the transmission losses were a lot higher.
I know the benefits of AC. I'm saying that the show put on for the masses (and for the people in charge of the decision) to generate a public opinion was not done via a cost-benefit analysis (like the one you did, and I of course know), but rather with publicity. Despite the outcome.
You now see everyone doubting about the use of nuclear power plant when they are actually safer than a coal plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents#Edison.27s_publicity_campaign
There are several books on the subject (and related). A teacher one made us read an extract from "The electric chair: an unnatural American history." I though it was pretty good if you want to read more on the subject.
Sorry for the off-topic.
|
correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there already been mention of partial meltdown occurring in at least one of the reactors due to exposed fuel rods above water days ago?
|
On March 17 2011 08:38 udgnim wrote:
correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there already been mention of partial meltdown occurring in at least one of the reactors due to exposed fuel rods above water days ago?
It was a possibility but it hasn't happened yet.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:38 udgnim wrote:
correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there already mention of partial meltdown occurring in at least one of the reactors days ago?
I remember reading a meltdown on the second reactor was "likely". But I don't remember if it was confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
