Do you have anything evidence that disagrees with this? Or is it that you just 'know' that what is said here is wrong?
idk if this is correct or not, but I don't find out by making up my mind before I read something and then seeing if the story agrees with what I have pre-determined. What I do is see if the new evidence given is supported or refuted by the previous evidence I have seen.
So any scientific studies that disagree with this?
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
I consider this pretty whacko too. There are pro nuclear nuts with Phds, believe it or not............. Tadashi Narabayashi Professor in Engineering Hokkaido University (in TV Asahi "Sunday Scramble" on Apr. 3, 2011)
Well, half of adult males will die if they ingest 200 grams of salt. With only 200 gram. However, oral lethal dose of plutonium-239 is 32g. So, if you　compare the toxicity, plutonium, when ingested, is not very different from salt. If you inhale it into your lungs, the lethal dose will be about 10　milligram. This is about the same as potassium cyanide. That sounds scary but the point is plutonium is no different from potassium cyanide. Some toxins like botulism bacillus that causes food poisoning is much more dangerous. Dioxin is even more dangerous. So, unless you turn plutonium into powder and swallow it into your lungs....
MC: "No one would do that."
Besides, plutonium can be stopped by a single sheet of paper. Plutonium is made into nuclear fuels in facilities with good protective measures, so you don't need to worry.
Keiichi Nakagawa Associate Professor in Radiology University of Tokyo Hospital (in Nippon TV "news every" on Mar. 29, 2011)
For example, plutonium will not be absorbed from the skin. Sometimes you ingest it through food, but in that case, most of it will go out in urine or stools. The problem occurs when you inhale it. Inhaling plutonium is said to increase the risk of lung cancer.
MC: "How will that affect our daily lives?"
Nothing.
MC: "Nothing?"
Nothing. To begin with, this material is very heavy. So, unlike iodine, it won't disperse in the air. Workers at the plant MAY be affected. So, I'd caution them to be careful. But I don't think the public should worry. For example, 50 years ago when I was born, the amount of plutonium was 1000 times higher than now.
MC: "Oh, why?"
Because of nuclear testing. So, even if the amount has now increased somewhat, in fact it's still much less than before. However, if it is released into the ocean through exhaust water, that's a problem. Once outside, plutonium hardly decreases.
MC: "It takes 24,000 years before it dicreases to half, doen't it?"
That's right. So, in that sense, plutonium is problematic. But then again, there will be no effect on the public. I think you can rest easy.
MC: "Let me summarize. Plutonium won't be absorbed from the skin. If it's ingested through food, it will go out of the body in urine. If it's inhaled, it may increase the risk of lung cancer. But since it's very heavy, we don't need to worry."
Hirotada Ohashi Professor in System Innovation University of Tokyo (at a panel discussion in Saga Pref. on Dec. 25, 2005, regarding using MOX fuel at Genkai Nuke Plant)
MC: Dr. Ohashi, please.
I'd like to point out two things. What happens in a [nuclear] accident depends entirely on your assumptions. If you assume everything would break and all the materials inside the reactor would be completely released into the environment, then we would get all kinds of result. But it's like discussing "what if a giant meteorite hit?" You are talking about the probability of an unlikely event.
You may think it's a big problem if an accident occurs at the reactor, but the nuclear experts do not think Containment Vessels will break. But the anti-nuclear people will say, "How do you know that?" Hydrogen explosions will not occur and I agree, but their argument is "how do you know that?"
So, right now in the safety review, we're assuming every technically possible situation. For example, such and such parts would break, plutonium would be released like this, then it would be stopped here...something like that. We set the hurdle high and still assume even the higher-level radiation would be released and make calculations.
This may be very difficult for you to understand this process, but we do. To figure out how far contamination might spread, we analyze based on our assumption of what could occur. However, the public interpret it as something that will occur. Or the anti-nuclear people take it in a wrong way and think we make such an assumption because it will happen. We can't have an argument with such people.
Another thing is the toxicity of plutonium. The toxicity of plutonium is very much exaggerated. Experts dealing with health damage by plutonium call this situation "social toxicity." In reality, there's nothing frightening about plutonium. If, in an extreme case, terrorists may take plutonium and throw it into a reservoir, which supplies the tap water. Then, will tens of thousands of people die? No, they won't. Not a single one will likely die. Plutonium is insoluble in water and will be expelled quickly from the body even if it's ingested with water.
So, what Dr. Koide is saying is if we take plutonium particles one by one, cut open your lungs and bury the plutonium particles deep in the lungs, then that many people will die. A pure fantasy that would never happen.
He's basically saying we can't drive a car, we can't ride a train, because we don't know what will happen.
MC: "Thank you very much."
Pluto-kun (Little Plutonium Boy) Mascot Character of Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (now Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
Let's imagine some bad guys have just thrown me into a reservoir. I'm not only hard to dissolve in water, but also hard to be absorbed from the stomach or intestines, and eventually I will be out of the body. So I can't actually kill people.
But it so often happens that bad guys take a small thing and turn it into a big lie to threaten people.
Maybe the russian spy that was killed by plutonium. Google it, it was mixed in his drink, and yes he died of the plutonium. Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko was his name. I am pretty sure he would disagree with Plutonium being as dangerous as salt.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:35 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Are you ever going to get any of your 'facts' right?
From your link... On 1 November 2006 Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised in what was established as a case of poisoning by radioactive polonium-210 and that resulted in his death on 23 November.
On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised. His illness was later attributed to poisoning with radionuclide polonium-210 after the Health Protection Agency found significant amounts of the rare and highly toxic element in his body. In interviews, Litvinenko stated that he met with two former KGB agents early on the day he fell ill - Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi. Though both denied any wrongdoing, a leaked US diplomatic cable revealed that Kovtun had left Polonium traces in the house and car he had used in Hamburg [3]. The men also introduced Litvinenko to a tall, thin man of central Asian appearance called 'Vladislav Sokolenko' who Lugovoi said was a business partner. Lugovoi is also a former bodyguard of Russian ex-Acting Prime minister Yegor Gaidar (who also suffered from a mysterious illness in November 2006). Later, he had lunch at Itsu, a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly in London, with an Italian acquaintance and nuclear waste expert, Mario Scaramella, to whom he made the allegations regarding Italy's Prime Minister Romano Prodi.[72] Scaramella, attached to the Mitrokhin Commission investigating KGB penetration of Italian politics, claimed to have information on the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, 48, a journalist who was killed at her Moscow apartment in October 2006.
Marina Litvinenko, widow of the deceased, accused Moscow of orchestrating the murder. Though she believes the order did not come from Putin himself, she does believe it was done at the behest of the authorities, and announced that she will refuse to provide evidence to any Russian investigation out of fear that it would be misused or misrepresented.[73]
So remind me how salt is just as dangerous?
IP: Logged
03:22 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
A commonly cited quote by Ralph Nader, states that a pound of plutonium dust spread into the atmosphere would be enough to kill 8 billion people. However, the math shows that one pound of plutonium could kill no more than 2 million people by inhalation. This makes the toxicity of plutonium roughly equivalent with that of nerve gas.[96] Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed. These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results.[91] "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[96][97]
Got me on that technicality, however I would say that still raises a reasonable doubt that salt is just as dangerous as Plutonium, remember the polonium was not inhaled.
IP: Logged
03:29 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
You're seriously going to try to make some argument that the toxicity of polonium has anything to do with the toxicity of plutonium?
quote
Got me on that technicality, however I would say that still raises a reasonable doubt that salt is just as dangerous as Plutonium, remember the polonium was not inhaled.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:32 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
All isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as “the most toxic substance known to man”, there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2006, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to exposure to plutonium itself (with the exception of plutonium-related criticality accidents). Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulin toxin are still more toxic. Botulin toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose of 300pg/kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot.
When taken in by mouth, plutonium is less poisonous (except for risk of causing cancer) than several common substances including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more poisonous than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco; and many illegal drugs (some such as marijuana are negligibly poisonous). From a purely chemical standpoint, it is about as poisonous as lead and other heavy metals. Not surprisingly, it has a metalic taste. [3]
That said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly. The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Particularly at risk are the skeleton, whose surface it is likely to be absorbed on, and the liver, where it will collect and become concentrated. Approximately 0.008 microcuries absorbed in bone marrow is the maximum withstandable dose. Anything more is considered toxic. Extremely fine particles of plutonium (on the order of micrograms) can cause lung cancer if inhaled.
Other substances including ricin, botulinum toxin, and tetanus toxin are fatal in doses of (sometimes far) under one milligram, and others (the nerve agents, the amanita toxin, the fugu toxin) are in the range of a few milligrams. As such, plutonium is not unusual in terms of toxicity, even by inhalation. In addition, those substances are fatal in hours to days, whereas plutonium (and other cancer-causing radioactives) give an increased chance of illness decades in the future. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have immediately died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies. http://nuke-threat-level.co...active-is-plutonium/ ---------------------------------------------------------- While this article tries to show plutonium is not the most toxic substance on earth it doesn't try to go to ludicrous lengths as to suggest salt is just as dangerous. It compares it with other "toxins" which salt is not. Comparing Plutonium with another fairly common and considered not that dangerous isotope (read alpha emmiter) is not that far fetched. Smokers are exposed to polonium 210 with every cig they puff on.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:46 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
This sounds just like what the Japanese scientist said about the toxicity of Plutonium and the fact it would be quickly removed from the body if not inhaled, however there is a documented case of where Polonium has killed from ingesting not inhalation. I do believe this provides reasonable doubt the Japanese scientist were being less than truthful. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxicity
Po-210 is highly radioactive and chemically toxic element. Direct damage occurs from energy absorption into tissues from alpha particles. As an alpha-emitter Po-210 represents a radiation hazard only if taken into the body. It´s important to note that alpha particles do not travel very far - no more than a few centimetres in air. They are stopped by a sheet of paper or by the dead layer of outer skin on our bodies. Therefore, external exposure from Po-210 is not a concern and Po-210 does not represent a risk to human health as long as Po-210 remains outside the body. Most traces of it on a person can be eliminated through careful hand-washing and showering.
Po-210 can enter the body through eating and drinking of contaminated food, breathing contaminated air or through a wound. The biological half-time (the time for the level of Po-210 in the body to fall by half) is approximately 50 days. If taken into the body, Po-210 is subsequently excreted, mostly through faeces but some is excreted through urine and other pathways. People who come into contact with a person contaminated by Po-210 will not be at risk unless they ingest or inhale bodily fluids of the contaminated person.
Plutonium can enter your body when it is inhaled or swallowed
When you breathe air that contains plutonium, some of it will get trapped in your lungs. Some of the trapped plutonium will move to other parts of your body, mainly your bones and liver. The amount of plutonium that stays in your lungs depends on the solubility of the plutonium that is in the air you breathe.
A small amount of the plutonium you swallow (much less than 1%) will enter other parts of your body (mainly your bones and liver).
If plutonium gets onto your healthy skin, very little, if any, plutonium will enter your body. More plutonium will enter your body if it gets onto injured skin, such as a cut or burn.
Plutonium in your body will remain there for many years
Plutonium leaves your body very slowly in the urine and feces. If plutonium were to enter your lungs today, much of the plutonium would still be in your body 30–50 years later. top
How can plutonium affect my health?
This section looks at studies concerning potential health effects in animal and human studies.
Lung, liver, and bone cancer
You may develop cancer depending on how much plutonium is in your body and for how long it remains in your body. The types of cancers you would most likely develop are cancers of the lung, bones, and liver. These types of cancers have occurred in workers who were exposed to plutonium in air at much higher levels than is in the air that most people breathe.
Affect ability to fight infections
In laboratory animals, plutonium affected the animal’s ability to resist disease (immune system). top
How can plutonium affect children?
This section discusses potential health effects in humans from exposures during the period from conception to maturity at 18 years of age.
There are differences between children and adult
Studies in young animals have shown that a larger amount of the plutonium deposited in the lung will move to growing bones. Therefore, it is possible that the bones of children could be more severely affected by plutonium than the bones of adults; however, this has not been shown in humans or tested in laboratory animals.
Studies in animals have also shown that a larger amount of plutonium that enters the gut of newborn animals is absorbed into the body.
Effects in unborn children
We do not know if plutonium causes birth defects or affects the ability to have children, although some plutonium that reaches the blood can be found in ovaries and testes.
A large portion of the plutonium in the body of adults is in bone. It is possible that plutonium in the bones of a pregnant woman may move to the fetus, when the calcium from the mother’s bone is being used to build the bones of the fetus. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ph...s.asp?id=646&tid=119
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now does it really make me a moron to compare two similar alpha emitters? Or was that just another one of your high class moments, because you seen a chance to try and discredit me? Which would you say is closer Plutonium and Polonium or Plutonium and salt? Is salt a heavy metal, like lead or mercury? Is salt a unstable isotope? If I handed you a glass of saltwater and a glass of Plutonium contaminated water, would you put your money where your mouth is and drink the Plutonium water?
IP: Logged
04:39 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
You asked so I will answer. It really shows your ignorance of the subject with you try to use the toxicity of polonium to 'prove' the EXPERTS incorrect when they discuss the toxicity of plutonium.
Yes, I think the word ignoramus is appropriate in this situation.
IP: Logged
05:09 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
You asked so I will answer. It really shows your ignorance of the subject with you try to use the toxicity of polonium to 'prove' the EXPERTS incorrect when they discuss the toxicity of plutonium.
Yes, I think the word ignoramus is appropriate in this situation.
I used a known case in which a similar alpha emitter proved fatal when ingested and not inhaled. It was not flushed from the body quickly enough to save the persons life as Japanese scientist suggested. You are grasping at straws and turning to personal attacks in a feeble attempt to discredit any information I post. However, by your actions you discredit yourself. I have showed Polonium is present in a large portion of society, just as they claim many people have plutonium in their bodies. They are both alpha emitters, they are both to some degree chemically toxic as well as radioactive, and they are both supposed far less dangerous if ingested rather than inhaled. So i do believe my example is reasonable evidence that salt is much less dangerous than Plutonium.
If I took 3/4 the lethal dose of salt water and you took 3/4 the lethal dose of Plutonium, which one of us would fare better? The argument salt is more dangerous than plutonium is just like the argument that dihydogen monoxide is a dangerous substance.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:31 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms can cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies. Plutonium is a dangerous substance that has been used in explosives for a long time. It is released into the atmosphere primarily by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and by accidents at weapon production sites. When plutonium is released into the atmosphere it will fall back onto earth eventually and end up in soils.
The LD50 dose for table salt is 3g per kilogram. A 150lb person is 68.03kg So we have a lethal dose at about 205grams for 50 percent of 150lb people. 205grams is about 1/2lb of salt. Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose So for salt to be as dangerous as Plutonium, a 150lb person shouldn't have to worry till they ate a 1/2lb of Plutonium.
IP: Logged
06:03 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The experts you quoted and then attacked did NOT say that the toxicity of plutonium is the same as salt. That is one more 'fact' that you made up yourself in your mind.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
I consider this pretty whacko too. There are pro nuclear nuts with Phds, believe it or not............. Tadashi Narabayashi Professor in Engineering Hokkaido University (in TV Asahi "Sunday Scramble" on Apr. 3, 2011)
Well, half of adult males will die if they ingest 200 grams of salt. With only 200 gram. However, oral lethal dose of plutonium-239 is 32g. So, if you　compare the toxicity, plutonium, when ingested, is not very different from salt....."
So your research came up with basically the same number for salt that they did.
So are you trying to attack the experts statement or have you now decided to try to support it?
IP: Logged
06:37 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The experts you quoted and then attacked did NOT say that the toxicity of plutonium is the same as salt. That is one more 'fact' that you made up yourself in your mind.
So your research came up with basically the same number for salt that they did.
So are you trying to attack the experts statement or have you now decided to try to support it?
If you google the LD50 of Plutonium that was ingested, you will find numbers in micograms up to the 32grams the scientist claimed. They are claiming it takes nearly 1/10 a lb of Plutonium to be lethal, and I doubt that is the case. I just put the LD50 of table salt in there for reference, so anyone can see how incredible the claim that Plutonium not being "very different" from table salt was.
No, they did not say the toxicity was the same, they just said not very different. So, once again your splitting hairs. The implied meaning, was plutonium isn't much more toxic than table salt when ingested. However, what they forgot to mention, unlike table salt, the little bit that does get absorbed into the blood stream, tends to stay with a person for life and irradiate the internal organs for life.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:03 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The amount of radiation released during the Fukushima nuclear disaster was so great that the level of atmospheric radioactive aerosols in Washington state was 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than normal levels in the week following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that triggered the disaster.
Despite the increase, the levels were still well below the amount considered harmful to humans and they posed no health risks to residents at the time, according to researchers at The University of Texas at Austin.
The findings, published by a mechanical engineering professor at the Cockrell School of Engineering and researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), provide important insight into the magnitude of the disaster. They also demonstrate huge advancements in the technology that's used for monitoring nuclear material and detecting covert nuclear operations around the world.
"I think the conclusion was that this was a really major event here," Cockrell School of Engineering Associate Professor Steven Biegalski said of the Fukushima disaster.
Biegalski was on a faculty research assignment at PNNL in Richland, Washington. Its here that, using technology that Biegalski helped improve, he and a team of researchers were the first to detect radioactive materials from Fukushima in the U.S.
The material detected, Xenon 133, is of the same chemical family as helium and argon and is an inert gas, meaning it does not react with other chemicals. The gas is not harmful in small doses and is used medically to study the flow of blood through the brain and the flow of air through the lungs.
Tracy Tipping, a health physicist and laboratory manager at The University of Texas at Austin's Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory, said the average person in the U.S. receives about 16.4 microsieverts of radiation dose per day from various sources of naturally occurring radiation, such as radioactive materials in the soil, cosmic radiation from outer space and naturally occurring radioactive materials within the body. In Washington, the increased levels from Fukushima meant the daily dose during that time could have been about 16.4017. A harmful amount that would cause obvious symptoms of exposure is anywhere from two to three million microsieverts at one time, he said.
"So, you can detect the increase but being detectable does not mean it's harmful," Tipping said.
Xenon 133 is a nuclear fission product that is closely monitored at nuclear stations around the world because it can be used to determine whether a country has conducted an illegal or covert nuclear test explosion. Such tests are banned under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was adopted by the United Nations in 1996 and created a worldwide network of nuclear monitoring stations.
Similarly to how 911 emergency centers can pinpoint the location of a cell phone call by triangulating the signal between many different cell towers, nuclear stations within the network share information on Xenon 133 and other radioactive materials to determine where they originated. The network, established as part of CTBT, is crucial to detecting clandestine nuclear tests.
The detection of the radioactive gas in Washington is significant because it demonstrates technology advancements made by Biegalski, PNNL and others, to create a more sensitive monitoring system – one that's capable of detecting extremely small amounts of the gas.
"The culmination of international research collaborations resulted in this very sensitive monitoring technology. These advancements will not only be beneficial for nuclear monitoring, they are also very beneficial to the emergency response teams called to disasters like Fukushima," said Biegalski, an expert in nuclear forensics, nuclear modeling, and nuclear monitoring, who is currently developing complex algorithms that will be used to improve the capabilities even more.
As soon as he and PNNL researchers began detecting radioactive gases in Washington, they shared the data with federal officials in the U.S. and Japan so that it could be relayed to emergency responders on the ground at Fukushima.
"As the measurements came in sooner and at higher concentrations than we initially expected, we quickly came to the conclusion that there were some major core melts at those facilities," Biegalski said. "I remember being in the lab thinking, 'Wow, if this is all true we have a far more bigger accident than what we're hearing right now."
The thought was confirmed by data collected by he and PNNL researchers. Their study reports that more radioxenon was released from the Fukushima facilities than in the 1979 meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania and in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine.
Biegalski said the reason for the large release in Fukushima, when compared to the others, is that there were three nuclear reactors at the Japan facilities rather than just one.
The study was published in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity.
Provided by University of Texas at Austin (news : web)
Dennis_6, the fact that you didn't even know they were different just makes you ignorant.
Your argument to try to save face that somehow the toxicity of one has any relationship of the toxicity of the other reveals that you are not too bright.
You said you considered the experts statements were 'wacko' and then you googled up the same information they said and have presented it as fact. Thus you are now stating that now their statements are non-wacko. Using your now presented facts would show that based on your previous statements, you were wrong.
re: plutonium vs salt toxic levels. When the toxic level difference is less than a factor of 10, they are considered to be exactly as the scientists stated "quite similar". So again you have shown evidence that your pre-assumed thinking was way off base. Again you were wrong
As I have said before - you do much better when you just copy and paste. You show time and time again that you have no understanding of logic or the science of what is going on.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
If you google the LD50 of Plutonium that was ingested, you will find numbers in micograms up to the 32grams the scientist claimed. They are claiming it takes nearly 1/10 a lb of Plutonium to be lethal, and I doubt that is the case. I just put the LD50 of table salt in there for reference, so anyone can see how incredible the claim that Plutonium not being "very different" from table salt was.
No, they did not say the toxicity was the same, they just said not very different. So, once again your splitting hairs. The implied meaning, was plutonium isn't much more toxic than table salt when ingested. However, what they forgot to mention, unlike table salt, the little bit that does get absorbed into the blood stream, tends to stay with a person for life and irradiate the internal organs for life.
IP: Logged
03:34 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Dennis_6, the fact that you didn't even know they were different just makes you ignorant.
Your argument to try to save face that somehow the toxicity of one has any relationship of the toxicity of the other reveals that you are not too bright.
You said you considered the experts statements were 'wacko' and then you googled up the same information they said and have presented it as fact. Thus you are now stating that now their statements are non-wacko. Using your now presented facts would show that based on your previous statements, you were wrong.
re: plutonium vs salt toxic levels. When the toxic level difference is less than a factor of 10, they are considered to be exactly as the scientists stated "quite similar". So again you have shown evidence that your pre-assumed thinking was way off base. Again you were wrong
As I have said before - you do much better when you just copy and paste. You show time and time again that you have no understanding of logic or the science of what is going on.
I believe I said that the toxicity of Plutonium varies according to who you ask. The scientist used the guess that best supported their claim. In the other end of the spectrum it varies by a factor of a 100. Btw, thank you on capitalizing on a memory mistake, I was going by memory when I brought up the Russian spy and yes it came up when I googled Plutonium poisoned russian spy. Yes I did just drop his name and didn't pay enough attention that it wasn't Plutonium, it was Polonium. However, that does not change the fact they are alpha emitters and similar enough to be used in comparison to salt. The statement the Japanese scientist made is whacko, I never agreed with it, stop putting words in my mouth. I think your having trouble understanding how different something can be with the difference of a power of 10. If a snake bite is 10 times more toxic than a black widow bite, you are probably dead. Looks to me, my logic is fine, its your logic in your attempt to keep the public from turning on the Nuclear power industry, that is flawed.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-11-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:27 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Nuclear power is the least expensive way to produce electricity. The problems are with the cost of the lawyers. The "greenies" have forced this country to burn coal instead of use nuclear power. We would have been much better off with nuclear power.
See, here is your true motive.
IP: Logged
01:46 PM
PFF
System Bot
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by phonedawgz: Graphite burns. Burning graphite mixed with a melted radioactive core launches radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Last I checked water doesn't burn.
This reactors core is located inside a containment vessel. The core could melt and there still could not be the release of radioactive particles.
quote Without stopping the reactions completely the reaction will get hot enough to breach the containment vessel also, like it did the core. is without merit
quote Containment vessels only buy you time. If you don't cool the core down faster than its heating up and shut down the reaction you are back at chernobyl. The only difference is it might like an explosion to help scatter the radio active material into the upper atmosphere and thats a maybe. incorrect
I addressed this back in March and the answers are still the same.
So I guess without stopping the reaction, "fission", the reactors are safe despite cooling problems? Or how about the containment vessels just buying time if the reactor wasn't brought under control? Kind of weird thats incorrect seeing as Japanese scientist are now saying the rods may actually be in the ground.
IP: Logged
10:40 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Plugging leaks will end crisis, not cold shutdown: analysts Evacuees' health said at risk if they return home after 'Step 2' achieved
By KAZUAKI NAGATA Staff writer
Ever since the nuclear crisis erupted six months ago, the public has been clamoring to know when the damaged reactors at the Fu ku shi ma No. 1 power plant will be brought under control and when the nightmare will end.
The government and Tokyo Electric Power Co., which runs the crippled plant, are working to bring the three reactors into cold shutdown by mid-January.
News photo
Cold shutdown means the temperature at the bottom of the pressure vessel, which holds the core, has been lowered to less than 100 degrees.
This critical milestone, known as "Step 2" in Tepco's road map for containing the crisis, would limit the release of radioactive materials from the plant to less than 1 millisievert per year, a level that poses no health risks.
Since work at the plant is proceeding relatively smoothly, it appears likely the mid-January target will be met.
But Fukushima No. 1 will still have a long way to go before the flooded plant's reactors are stable enough to be considered safe, experts warn. The main reason is the abundance of highly radioactive water.
"There are about 110,00 tons of contaminated water (in the plant) and the situation is still not completely under control because coolant water is leaking from the containment vessels.
There is no guarantee that the irradiated water won't leak from the plant (and contaminate the environment)" if another natural disaster strikes, said Hisashi Ninokata, a professor of reactor engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
After achieving cold shutdowns of reactors 1, 2 and 3, the government may declare parts of the 20-km no-go zone around the plant safe. It may even let the evacuees return, as long as the area is decontaminated and crucial infrastructure restored.
But the longer the tainted water leaks, the more the radioactive waste will grow, leaving the Fukushima plant vulnerable to further disasters, Ninokata said.
Before the Fukushima crisis can be said contained, the holes and cracks from which the water and fuel are escaping must be located and sealed. But this extremely difficult task could take years because the radiation near the reactors is simply too high to let workers get near them.
News photo Desolation row: The buildings of the four troubled reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant are seen from the air in August. KYODO PHOTO
"It'll be too early to say that the situation has reached a stable phase even after Step 2 is completed," said Chihiro Kamisawa, a researcher at Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, a nonprofit group of scientists and activists opposed to nuclear power.
When a reactor is in cold shutdown, the water cooling its fuel is still hot but no longer boiling, which significantly reduces the amount of radioactive emissions.
In late July, the temperature in reactor No. 1's pressure vessel fell below 100 degrees. On Monday, the same thing was achieved in reactor 3 after Tepco activated a system that pumps water deep into the containment vessel. But on Friday, reactor No. 2 was still boiling away with a reading of 112.6.
"Efforts seem to be making smooth progress, and I think Step 2 is likely to be achieved by mid-January," said Shinichi Morooka, a Waseda University professor and reactor expert.
Another reason for optimism is the progress being made with the water decontamination system. The cleaning rate has greatly improved in the past few weeks and exceeded 90 percent of capacity last week.
If the decontamination system ever reaches its full potential, it will allow Tepco to inject coolant at a higher rate and bring the melted cores to lower and stabler temperatures.
The government also plans to start decontaminating soil in various hot spots so the evacuees can return once the second step is completed.
But some experts are questioning whether residents should be allowed to return so soon. The cracks and holes in the leaking reactors haven't even been pinpointed yet, let alone fixed, they say.
"As an engineer, I am worried (about the plan to let residents return) when it is still unclear what is really going on inside the reactors," said Morooka.
For the time being, Tepco can only guess where the water is leaking from and which parts need repair, because radiation has prevented workers from fully exploring the buildings.
Spokesman Junichi Matsumoto said that since no extensive damage to the reactors was found during inspections of the first and second floors of the buildings, any holes or cracks are probably at the basement level.
But with the basement floors flooded, Tepco's top priority is just to get the water out. Plans to fix the reactors aren't even being discussed yet, Matsumoto said.
Asked if the containment vessels can take another quake, the Tokyo Institute of Technology's Ninokata said he believes the impact would likely be distributed evenly through the structure without widening existing cracks or holes.
But if the impact somehow focuses on parts damaged by the March 11 disasters, there could be further damage, he said.
"The containment vessel is what really ensures the safety of a nuclear reactor," Ninokata said, warning that if radioactive materials are still leaking out, allowing residents to return would risk harming their health. http://search.japantimes.co...in/nn20110911f1.html
Nuclear power is the least expensive way to produce electricity. The problems are with the cost of the lawyers. The "greenies" have forced this country to burn coal instead of use nuclear power. We would have been much better off with nuclear power.
This can only be true if all the costs of construction, decommissioning, waste storage, and disaster cleanup are completely ignored. In other words, as long as the taxpayer is picking up the tab for all those costs then nuclear is indeed the cheapest. Then again, if one hires 12 million unemployed folks to pedal bicycles connected to generators and only charge for the food to feed the bicyclists, leaving the taxpayer to pay for the bicycles and the pedalers hourly wages that would also be a very cheap way to make electricity.
IP: Logged
02:06 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
You tried that line months ago and it was shown to be false months ago.
I provided credible information to back up what I said then. Your ideology filters prevent you from seeing info you don't want to believe in, and I know this, which is why I aim my comments at the general audience and not you.
Discussing this with you is as meaningful as talking to a stone, but even a rock in the garden accomplishes some good in the world.
Meanwhile, back to reality, any word when the tens of thousands of Fukushima nuclear refugees will be allowed to return to their homes, lands, farms, and lives so that they can start rebuilding? Yesterday was the 6 month anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, six months during which everyone else in Japan has been restarting their lives after cremating/burying their loved ones and coming to terms with their grief and loss. The Fukishima nuclear refugees are living in improvised evacuation centers with no real hope or options, which must really be hard on the ones whose properties weren't touched by the tsunami and only moderately damaged by the earthquake.
I'm assuming that TEPCO is issuing these survivors monthly checks to replace lost income from farms and ranches, from small businesses, lost jobs from businesses forced to close because of the fallout contamination from Fukushima. Is that a false assumption? I don't know, but would like to know.
Half a year, no real plans on resolving this that I know of, a truly open-ended disaster just like Chernobyl.
IP: Logged
06:44 PM
Sep 13th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Breaking News: Japanese gov’s trying to stop citizen measuring radiation Posted by Mochizuki on September 11th, 2011 · 8 Comments
On this morning’s NHK “Sunday Debate” program, Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Secretary-General Nobuteru Ishihara stated, “Geiger counters costing between 40,000 and 50,000 yen ($500-600) provide patchy measurements. We have to try and stop citizens from taking their own radiation measurements.” It seems that he really doesn’t like the fact that citizens are taking their own radiation readings. Even if the figures are patchy, the measurements still tell us correctly whether the radiation level is high or low.
I'm kind of thinking that if my land and crops were contaminated, I'd rather have my own geiger counter to know rather than than live in ignorance. In the case of nuclear disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl, ignorance is most definitely not bliss...
Half a year gone by, no closer to any kind of resolution* than we were then.
*Resolution means, everyone returns to their homes, farms, businesses, schools, and starts rebuilding their lives. Full restitution for damages resulting from the reactor meltdowns. Loved ones who were killed by the tsunami recovered and cremated per most precious religious beliefs.
IP: Logged
01:43 PM
PFF
System Bot
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Monday, September 12, 2011 Nikkan SPA Magazine: Researcher Says Large Amount of Neptunium-239 Also in Date City, Fukushima
It's the same researcher who said several thousand becquerels/kg of neptunium-239 was found in the soil in Iitate-mura, about 35 km northwest of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. It seems it's not just Iitate-mura that got doused with neptunium, which decays into plutonium. Date City, about 25 km northwest from Iitate-mura and 60 km from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, also got a large amount of neptunium.
To recap, uranium-239, whose half life is about 24 minutes, decays into neptunium-239 with a half life of about 2.5 days, which then decays into plutonium-239 whose half life is 24,200 years.
Again, the reason for withholding the information is explained in the article below as "the research paper being peer-reviewed by a foreign scientific journal" - a make-or-break event, apparently, for a young researcher at a prestigious university in Japan - and as precaution against the possible Japanese government action to squash the information. The article was written by the same husband & wife comedian couple who first wrote about neptunium in Iitate-mura on their blog magazine in early August.
I'm sure the nuclear experts who have appeared on TV to soothe the populace ever since the March 11 nuclear accident has the good explanation for neptunium-239 in these locations. They've kept saying "No way plutonium will be found outside the compound, because it is heavy and it doesn't fly". Oh I get it. It's plutonium they were talking about, not neptunium which decays into plutonium. My bad.
From Nikkan SPA September 13 issue (part on Date City only):
"I heard it directly from a university researcher whose specialty is radiation measurement. Neptunium, the nuclide that decays into plutonium, flew at least to Iitate-mura and Date City in large quantity. The current survey method focuses only on gamma ray, and all it detects is radioactive cesium. The real danger is alpha-nuclides, which continues to be ignored. Iitate-mura may be being betrayed again..."
The article by the comedian cum independent journalist couple continues and says this person attended a lecture given by this researcher.
It still doesn't make sense to me that the information already freely given at a public lecture has to be withheld because of the peer-review process, but oh well.
Date City by the way has been selected by the national government to conduct "decontamination" experiments. So is Iitate-mura. They are using high-pressure spray washers to blast roofs, sidings and roads, and digging up the soil. Plutonium? What plutonium?
Unlike Iitate-mura, though, almost all residents in Date City still live within the city. Even those who are ordered to move because of high radiation level in their homes have moved to temporary housing that the city has provided, within the city.
At least Japan is taking this seriously... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUKUSHIMA -- The Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) and residents of the zone between 20 and 30 kilometers from the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant held an emergency evacuation drill on Sept. 12.
The drill, held in preparation for any further large-scale emission of radioactive materials from the plant, was the first involving local residents. The GSDF held a similar drill without civilian participation in July.
The scenario for the drill presupposed further meltdown of the Fukushima plant's No. 3 reactor core, and a local accumulation of radioactive materials emitting 20 millisieverts of radiation within the next four days. A total of some 400 GSDF personnel were deployed for the drill held in the municipalities of Minamisoma, Tamura, Kawauchi, Hirono, Tomioka and Naraha. Thirty-two municipal workers and firefighters along with 18 local residents also joined the drill.
According to the GSDF, its personnel were divided into teams to evacuate the 384 people in areas 20-30 kilometers from the plant who would have extreme difficulty fleeing any further disaster on their own, including some confined to bed. The operation involved 120 GSDF ground vehicles and six helicopters. GSDF personnel went to assigned homes to drive elderly residents to evacuation points, as well as hospitals to drive and fly patients to medical facilities in the city of Fukushima.
So where do you think this neptunium came from? If it has a half life of 2.5 as stated in your story, it would have to have been deposited there fairly recently.
So any chance you checked the density of neptunium vs plutonium? Comes out that they very close to the same.
Just one more wacko story that makes no sense.
IP: Logged
06:43 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
So where do you think this neptunium came from? If it has a half life of 2.5 as stated in your story, it would have to have been deposited there fairly recently.
So any chance you checked the density of neptunium vs plutonium? Comes out that they very close to the same.
Just one more wacko story that makes no sense.
Uranium-239 is an isotope of uranium. It is usually produced by exposing 238U to neutron radiation in a nuclear reactor. 239U has a half-life of about 23.45 minutes and decays into neptunium-239 through beta decay, with a total decay energy of about 1.29 Mev.[2]. The most common gamma decay at 74.660 kev accounts for the difference in the two major channels of beta emission energy, at 1.28 and 1.21 Mev.[3]
239Np further decays to plutonium-239, in a second important step which ultimately produces fissile 239Pu (used in weapons and for nuclear power), from 238U in reactors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._uranium#Uranium-239
IP: Logged
07:23 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
*Resolution means, everyone returns to their homes, farms, businesses, schools, and starts rebuilding their lives. Full restitution for damages resulting from the reactor meltdowns. Loved ones who were killed by the tsunami recovered and cremated per most precious religious beliefs.
I don't ever see that happening in my life-time.
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
Sep 14th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
An extensive area of more than 8,000 square kilometers has accumulated cesium 137 levels of 30,000 becquerels per square meter or more after the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to Asahi Shimbun estimates.
The affected area is one-18th of about 145,000 square kilometers contaminated with cesium 137 levels of 37,000 becquerels per square meter or more following the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union.
The contaminated area includes about 6,000 square kilometers in Fukushima Prefecture, or nearly half of the prefecture. Fukushima Prefecture, the third largest in Japan, covers 13,782 square kilometers.
The government has not disclosed the size of the area contaminated with cesium 137 released from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant. Cesium 137 has a long half-life of about 30 years.
The Asahi Shimbun calculated the size of the contaminated area based on a distribution map of accumulated cesium 137 levels measured from aircraft, which was released by the science ministry on Sept. 8.
The estimated size may increase in the future because the distribution map will be subject to corrections and because it currently covers only five prefectures.
The contaminated area includes about 1,370 square kilometers in northern Tochigi Prefecture, about 380 square kilometers in southern Miyagi Prefecture and about 260 square kilometers in Ibaraki Prefecture.
In the Chernobyl accident, a vapor explosion occurred at the No. 4 reactor during an experiment, spewing radioactive materials contained in fuel up thousands of meters into the atmosphere, which spread over Europe and other areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
The amount of radioactive materials released from the Fukushima No. 1 plant was relatively limited because the reactors were damaged but still sealed to some extent.
After the Chernobyl accident, cesium 137 levels of 37,000 becquerels per square meter or more were accumulated in an area about 145,000 square kilometers, or equivalent to about 40 percent of Japan, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The science ministry's distribution map only shows the area contaminated with 30,000 becquerels of cesium 137 or more, not detailed breakdowns such as 37,000 becquerels.
The no-entry zone and the planned evacuation zone around the Fukushima No. 1 plant total about 1,100 square kilometers, affecting about 85,000 residents.
In the planned evacuation zone, the government has called on residents to leave on the grounds that radiation levels will exceed 20 millisieverts a year.
After the Chernobyl accident, a highly contaminated area with cesium 137 levels exceeding 550,000 becquerels per square meter was designated as a forced migration zone.
It stretched over about 10,300 square kilometers in the current Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and an estimated 400,000 residents evacuated, including those outside the zone.
According to the science ministry's distribution map, about 600 square kilometers around the Fukushima No. 1 plant was contaminated with cesium 137 levels of 600,000 becquerels or more. The area is one-17th the forced migration zone around the Chernobyl plant.
Radiation levels are still high in the area. Measurements in six locations in the town of Namie, Fukushima Prefecture, which are 24 to 31 kilometers from the Fukushima No. 1 plant, ranged between 4.5 and 32.6 microsieverts per hour on Sept. 9.
The accidents at the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the Chernobyl plant are both rated the worst level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale because the quantities of radioactive materials released exceeded several tens of thousands of terabecquerels.
The amount of radioactive materials released into the atmosphere from the No. 1 to 3 reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant is estimated to be 770,000 terabecquerels.
The amount is about one-seventh the 5.2 million terabecquerels released into the atmosphere from the Chernobyl plant over 10 days.
Of various radioactive materials, the amount of cesium 137 was 15,000 terabecquerels in the Fukushima accident, about one-sixth the 85,000 terabecquerels in the Chernobyl accident.
Cesium 137 levels of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima were far lower, at only 89 terabecquerels.
An official at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said a nuclear plant accident is substantially different in nature from an atomic bomb.
Radiation accounts for only 15 percent of the energy of an atomic bomb, with the remaining 85 percent resulting in the blast and heated air.
After the Fukushima accident, people will be exposed to low levels of radiation over a long term, whereas atomic bomb victims were immediately exposed to high levels of radiation and suffered acute symptoms, such as diarrhea, fever and hair loss. http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109130348.html
I don't see it happening in anyone's lifetime, alive now or yet to be born...
One thing for sure, all of those properties will suffer severe degradation within a few years (if they haven't already-the buildings in the video indicated a current need for a lot of repairs).
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 09-14-2011).]
One thing for sure, all of those properties will suffer severe degradation within a few years (if they haven't already-the buildings in the video indicated a current need for a lot of repairs).
