Woo! New site is online - select here to use it!


Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

RADIATION

Reply
Created by theDoctor > 9 months ago, 3 Apr 2012
theDoctor
NSW, 5786 posts
4 Apr 2012 12:07AM
Thumbs Up



www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-radiation-warnings-you-wont-get-from-the-mainstream-propaganda-machine_04022012



Cesium levels in the Pacific had initially gone up an astonishing 45 million times above pre-accident levels. The levels then declined rapidly for a while, but after that, they unexpectedly levelled off.

In July, cesium levels stopped declining and remained stuck at 10,000 times above pre-accident levels.

This means the ocean isn't diluting the radiation as expected. If it had been, cesium levels would have kept falling.

The finding suggests that radiation is still being released into the ocean long after the accident in March, 2011.

Macroscien
QLD, 6809 posts
4 Apr 2012 2:05PM
Thumbs Up

Since no OECD country build new reactors on their land maybe they just hidding them under the sea water level
This way nobody needs to worry about air and land radiation pollution any more !!
And is safe from the biggest tsunami ?

If it is feasible to build nuclear power plant of industrial strength

on the ship ( floating or submerged ) ??

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
4 Apr 2012 12:22PM
Thumbs Up

Wash your food with soap and rinse it in filtered water.
Be aware of the origins of your vegetables, fish, game and seafood.
Keep abreast of radiation levels to help monitor where your food is acquired.
Use only filtered water for drinking, cooking and ice.

Jeez PM33 is gonna be busy

evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
4 Apr 2012 2:42PM
Thumbs Up

What's the original source of this information?

Led by Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist and marine chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) [www.whoi.edu/], the team found that the concentration of several key radioactive substances, or radionuclides, were elevated but varied widely across the study area, reflecting the complex nature of the marine environment. In addition, although levels of radioactivity in marine life sampled during the cruise were well below levels of concern for humans and the organisms themselves, the researchers leave open the question of whether radioactive materials are accumulating on the seafloor sediments and, if so, whether these might pose a long-term threat to the marine ecosystem.

The results appear in the April 2 online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).


And here it is:
www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109

We address risks to public health and marine biota by showing that though Cs isotopes are elevated 10-1,000? over prior levels in waters off Japan, radiation risks due to these radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring radionuclides.


Also Cesium-134, that could only come from the reactors at ****ushima (< how funny is that?), has a half-life (the time it takes for one half of a given amount of radionuclide to decay) of a little over two years.

My guess for the levelling off would be, erm, the half-life.

d1
WA, 304 posts
4 Apr 2012 12:59PM
Thumbs Up

Macroscien said...

Since no OECD country build new reactors on their land maybe they just hidding them under the sea water level


This is so untrue. The only country that is phasing out nuclear that I'm aware of is Germany, and that's purely due to a similar political coalition there as currently in Australia. Browse to the middle of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country then look at the blue colours.

Currently, nuclear is the cleanest baseload energy possibility for Australia. The alternative is coal. Nuclear energy is a great fit for this country, as it is so naturally easy to mine, process and dispose of Uranium here. Of course, F_u_k_u_shima and Chernobyl will be the first words to come out of some whale-hugging "activists", but if one balances all the safety and environmental factors, nuclear is currently the way to go.

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
4 Apr 2012 1:06PM
Thumbs Up

d1 said...

Macroscien said...

Since no OECD country build new reactors on their land maybe they just hidding them under the sea water level


This is so untrue. The only country that is phasing out nuclear that I'm aware of is Germany, and that's purely due to a similar political coalition there as currently in Australia. Browse to the middle of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country then look at the blue colours.

Currently, nuclear is the cleanest baseload energy possibility for Australia. The alternative is coal. Nuclear energy is a great fit for this country, as it is so naturally easy to mine, process and dispose of Uranium here. Of course, F_u_k_u_shima and Chernobyl will be the first words to come out of some whale-hugging "activists", but if one balances all the safety and environmental factors, nuclear is currently the way to go.


You have been trolled

Macroscien
QLD, 6809 posts
4 Apr 2012 3:27PM
Thumbs Up



This is so untrue.

we may have different wikipedia's on our computers I am afraid.
On mine doesn't much happening under construction and planning in developed world





Macroscien
QLD, 6809 posts
4 Apr 2012 3:32PM
Thumbs Up

I am serious
Nuclear power

plant should be build on the ship and carry to the destination where needed then plug in into grid.
If aircraft carrier size is big enough ??




d1
WA, 304 posts
4 Apr 2012 1:39PM
Thumbs Up

Ship-based power station - it has been done. I believe NZ has at least one, but they are not nuclear.

Macroscien, I think you may have an alternative definition of "OECD country" :) Look in the "Construction" field of the table you provided.

d1
WA, 304 posts
4 Apr 2012 2:07PM
Thumbs Up

Macroscien said...
Nuclear power
If aircraft carrier size is on big enough ??


It's more than big enough. Nuclear energy can be generated from devices the size of a pace-maker up. Aircraft carriers are usually nuclear-powered anyway. For commercial use, the current reactor designs are unsuitable for ship-based operation, but there is a reactor operating in Germany (AVR) that uses a promising technology - pebble-sized graphite coated fuel. The reaction is self-modulating and effectively self-shuts-down as it gets hotter. Reactors like this can be modular and the size of a railway car. Much R&D was done by the US, RSA and China in this field, but this solution is currently not industrialised. Too much detail, sorry...

Green Cherub
WA, 296 posts
4 Apr 2012 2:12PM
Thumbs Up

quoting wikipedia is like arguing on the internet...oh wait.

GypsyDrifter
WA, 2371 posts
7 Apr 2012 6:03PM
Thumbs Up

doggie said...

Wash your food with soap
Keep abreast


Wash your food with soap lol soap, doggie...really!?

Keep abreast ...you would like that hu? (.) (.)

gibberjoe
SA, 956 posts
7 Apr 2012 10:25PM
Thumbs Up


power ships.....they used one to repower Darwin after Tracy while they were

getting things going again. that ship was sent up from Tassy where it had been

used, somewhere on the west coast i think. maybe we own it??

actiomax
NSW, 1576 posts
8 Apr 2012 8:55AM
Thumbs Up

remember your only ever 300km away from nuclear reactors . some satellites are nuclear powered .

Mobydisc
NSW, 9029 posts
8 Apr 2012 9:29AM
Thumbs Up

actiomax said...

remember your only ever 300km away from nuclear reactors . some satellites are nuclear powered .


Plus our life depends on the biggest fusion nuclear reactions in the solar system.

What about thorium reactors? From what I've read thorium is quite safe to work with and thorium reactors cannot make fuel for nuclear weapons or melt down.

FlySurfer
NSW, 4460 posts
8 Apr 2012 11:46AM
Thumbs Up

The way I see it, Japan only has 1 option, and they're wasting time by not doing it.
They need to build a tomb for the ****ushima plant.

It's going to be a very complex job, given the magnitude, presence of the sea (ground water) and radiation, but otherwise those cores are going to keep leaking... for maybe another 30-100 years.

FlySurfer
NSW, 4460 posts
9 Apr 2012 12:19PM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
9 Apr 2012 7:55PM
Thumbs Up

Did you read the actual report (I mean the executive summary) or just the "Chinese whispers", sensationalist, echo-chamber, hyperbole that is far more exciting?

This is the source of the source of the source:
www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said...
We address risks to public health and marine biota by showing that though Cs isotopes are elevated 10-1,000? over prior levels in waters off Japan, radiation risks due to these radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring radionuclides.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"RADIATION" started by theDoctor