|
|
| 8.8 Earthquake in Japan |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Wiki about cosmic particles says vast vast majority are alpha, and you say it's absorbed by the skin.. Furthermore, something tells me the fuselage would have some stopping effect. There's some beta too, but almost no gamma as I understand, so.. What is harmful there? Do the crews keep track of it?
|
|
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
|
If I'm not mistaken x-rays are there too. Essentially any photon with high enough frequency is ionizing radiation. Not to mention neutrons. [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
Didn't all of you know that the yellow lines are long pieces of tape that hold the road together? |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Matthew Leverton said: Didn't all of you know that the yellow lines are long pieces of tape that hold the road together? Wow! I didn't know half this stuff! They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
type568 said: Wiki about cosmic particles says vast vast majority are alpha
It's mostly protons, actually. Quote: What is harmful there? First off, cosmic rays have vastly greater energies than particles produced through simple radioactive decay. The helium nuclei produced by alpha decay typically have energies in the order of 5 MeV or so. Cosmic ray helium nuclei OTOH can have energies up to the order of TeV... Anyway. The answer is "various kinds of secondary radiation: mostly neutrons" (at cruising altitude, neutrons make up more than 50% of the equivalent dose[1]). AFAIK, the neutrons are mostly produced through a process called spallation, when high energy cosmic rays strike nuclei in the atmosphere. [EDIT] References
-- |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
gnolam said: Kyodo News: All 6 Fukushima reactors reconnected to external power [english.kyodonews.jp]
Afaik they have been able to switch on the lights in the control room of no 3. Great! edit: Quote:
First emission estimates Source: here |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
The official death toll has risen to 10000, with 17000 still missing, and 240000 still living in temporary shelters. Also, three workers at Fukushima aiming for a Darwin Award have suffered radiation burns. Quote: The two men were not wearing rubber boots as they stood in water that contained radioactive materials 10,000 times the normal level, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said.
-- |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
So death pool being about 30 000.. Eh, considering the scale of the disaster I'd say very well done. Though the world has lost 25% of it's silicon chip manufacturing abilities
|
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
What I've learned from this is we need to do a better job building nuclear plants. |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
That is correct! I believe a nuclear power plant must be able to survive a direct nuclear warhead hit without releasing a Bq of radiation itself!
|
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
Quote:
Oh, there are really so many reasons to trust them, including this: Quote: The utility "eventually admitted to two hundred occasions over more than two decades between 1977 and 2002, involving the submission of false technical data to authorities" [...] In 2007, however, the company announced to the public that an internal investigation had revealed a large number of unreported incidents. These included an unexpected unit criticality in 1978 and additional systematic false reporting, which had not been uncovered during the 2002 inquiry
Business as usual There was this interesting report about TEPCO having been hiring unskilled workers for years, firing them after their radiation dose was reached... Unfortunately, I can't find it in English. Matthew Leverton said:
What I've learned from this is we need to do a better job building nuclear plants. At some point, they'll become too expensive... I forgot to mention: No insurance-company has ever covered nuclear accidents at power plants. I guess they know why, AFAIK they're pretty good at estimating risks. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Polybios said: I forgot to mention: No insurance-company has ever covered nuclear accidents at power plants. -- |
|
decepto
Member #7,102
April 2006
|
Question: Why aren't nuclear reactors built underground? -------------------------------------------------- |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
decepto said: Question: Why aren't nuclear reactors built underground?
Why should they?
|
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
Quote: Patently false. [www.amnucins.com]
Interesting. I admit I didn't word my claim carefully enough. ^^ BTW, risk estimates are roughly at 1 "beyond design basis accident" every 30 years with about 400 reactors in the world. So, it is actually a bit too early. |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Polybios said: Oh, there are really so many reasons to trust them, At the marriage counselor: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
|
--- 0xDB | @dennisbusch_de --- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
-- |
|
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
|
What people conveniently do not mention is that even though a nuclear disaster of epic proportions was eventually avoided at Fukushima, it was a pretty damn close call. And the reactor itself is pretty much the cleanest and safest part of the whole chain. Another thing that bothers me to no end is that people conveniently suggest that the amount of required energy is a given - it's not. --- |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
{"name":"117322.strip.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/d\/2d54072eddc0533acba76a22874a9569.gif","w":640,"h":199,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/d\/2d54072eddc0533acba76a22874a9569"} They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Tobias Dammers said: Another thing that bothers me to no end is that people conveniently suggest that the amount of required energy is a given - it's not.
You're right. The energy demand will only grow further. -- |
|
Elias
Member #358
May 2000
|
But what about daylight savings time? And abandoning light bulbs? Clearly a lot is being done to reduce energy consumption. -- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Quote: But what about daylight savings[sic] time? Irrelevant. Even the few modern studies that show any kind of power savings from daylight saving time show absolutely insignificant savings. Elias said: And abandoning light bulbs?
Also irrelevant. Put it like this: Earth Hour was indistinguishable from noise in the power companies' usage charts. -- |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Just think of the uproar that would ensue if the 10,000 deaths were due to unclear energy instead of a natural cause. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
|
|