|
|
|
| 8.8 Earthquake in Japan |
|
jhuuskon
Member #302
April 2000
 |
Halogen spotlights, baby! You don't deserve my sig. |
|
Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
 |
GullRaDriel said: All these production stops will lead us to have no more incandescent bulbs to sell at the end of 2012. Yeah, but by then the world will have ended, so it doesn't matter.
|
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
 -- |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
The maximum radiation in that clip was 112 uSiv/hr at 11:36. Wikipedia claims that up to 0.25 uSiv/day fails to produce symptoms. So, while ignoring the body's ability to repair itself during lengthy exposures, they could have stayed there 93 days before feeling ill. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: uSiv/hr
µSv/h, dammit. Quote: Wikipedia claims that up to 0.25 uSiv/day fails to produce symptoms.
It bloody well should, since that's in the order of a tenth of normal background. -- |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Whoopsy! I should have said 0.25Sv They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
So now they admitted it was INES 7. edit: Quote: One official from Tepco said that radiation leaks had not stopped completely and could eventually exceed those at Chernobyl, Reuters news agency reported. If Tepco says "could" in this context, that translates to "will". |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Polybios said: So now they admitted it was INES 7.
-- |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
Well, while I agree on a), the point with b) is that information was available before. They just officially stopped to assess each reactor/spent fuel rod separately by now, which was nonsense anyway: I'm sure the people who live/d in the area do not care where exactly their new long-term cohabitants Caesium and Strontium came from. |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
 |
The estimated the fallout volume about 10% of Chernobyl..
|
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
important words missing: so far BTW, there were other, larger estimates weeks ago. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Polybios said: BTW, there were other, larger estimates weeks ago. By people like fox, who were over reacting to blown up reports -- |
|
ImLeftFooted
Member #3,935
October 2003
 |
It would be nice to get a accurate report from someone. |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
No, not just Fox. The Austrian meteorology office already said on 24th March: Quote: The three day emissions from Fukushima of Iodine-131 would be about 20% of the total Chernobyl emissions, while those of Cesium-137 would be between 20 and 60% Note they're taking into consideration the first three days only. Source here. As they're neither Greenpeace, nor affiliated with the nuclear industry, I'd give them some credibility. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Wow, the austrians? I assume they are some kind of authority on japanese reactors? -- |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
It's not about the reactors. It's about emissions carried away by the wind. There's no knowledge needed about the reactors whatsoever. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
So they were there and taking measurements? I doubt it -- |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
Of course they weren't, they took the Japanese and US and international measurements and calculated using them. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Polybios said: It's not about the reactors. It's about emissions carried away by the wind. There's no knowledge needed about the reactors whatsoever. Their estimate is based on measurements from Takasaki and the US Pacific coast, which leads to absolutely enormous error bars, since it relies on long-distance, long-timescale meteorological models. Which are notoriously fickle. I'll take the official sources, thankyouverymuch. -- |
|
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
 |
Thomas Fjellstrom said: Wow, the austrians? I assume they are some kind of authority on japanese reactors? Mind you, they are still a bit envious, because of their world's most expensive museum of atomic energy - finished nuclear powerplant that never ran a fission reaction. [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Tsk, don't we all have one of those? -- |
|
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
|
That buidling surely is a beast. Seems like I have another place to visit and shoot on my camera [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
gnolam said: Their estimate is based on measurements from Takasaki and the US Pacific coast, which leads to absolutely enormous error bars, since it relies on long-distance, long-timescale meteorological models. Which are notoriously fickle. I'll take the official sources, thankyouverymuch. Did the "officials" sit beside the reactors and actually count the isotopes? No wait, they'd have to sit on a boat a bit to the east... Do they have measuring devices there, on the sea? I doubt it... |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Polybios said: Did the "officials" sit beside the reactors and actually count the isotopes? Pretty much, actually - they're doing continuous air, soil and seawater sampling around the plant. -- |
|
|
|
