You stated there was no re-criticality. Yet, you claim to have not stated fission is not happening. In a reactors shut down state fission does not occur, when a reactor is in its powered on state fission occurs, also known as criticality. So were you mistaken, just intentionally changing the facts again?
"Also in the core are control rods. These rods have pellets inside that are made of very efficient neutron capturers. An example of such a material is cadmium. These control rods are connected to machines that can raise or lower them in the core. When they are fully lowered into the core, fission can not occur because they absorb free neutrons. However, when they are pulled out of the reactor, fission can start again anytime a stray neutron strikes a 235U atom, thus releasing more neutrons, and starting a chain reaction. " http://library.thinkquest.o...r/fission_power.html
Since you evidently can not read, I am re quoting myself. Read slowly and try to understand, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:33 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Clearly wacko scientist, they are wasting valuable time and resources to test seals in Alaska for radiation exposure, when fukushima is in cold shutdown, and all significant radiation leaks have been halted. </Sarcasm> -------------------------------- Diseased seals in Alaska tested for radiation
Published: 2:24PM Wednesday December 28, 2011 Source: Reuters
Scientists in Alaska are investigating whether local seals are being sickened by radiation from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.
Scores of ring seals have washed up on Alaska's Arctic coastline since July, suffering or killed by a mysterious disease marked by bleeding lesions on the hind flippers, irritated skin around the nose and eyes and patchy hair loss on the animals' fur coats.
Biologists at first thought the seals were suffering from a virus, but they have so far been unable to identify one, and tests are now underway to find out if radiation is a factor.
"We recently received samples of seal tissue from diseased animals captured near St Lawrence Island with a request to examine the material for radioactivity," said John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
"There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor's damage," he said.
The results of the tests would not be available for "several weeks," Kelley said.
Water tests have not picked up any evidence of elevated radiation in US Pacific waters since the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which caused multiple fuel meltdowns at the Fukushima plant and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate the surrounding area.
Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have been seeking the cause of the diseased seals for weeks, but have so far found no answers.
Did you think the definition of fission or nuclear criticality would change if you quoted yourself?
Your argument that re-criticality is not occurring, loses all credibility when you refuse to state fission is not occurring. You can not state fission is not occurring because of the fission products still being detected. A reactor in its shutdown state, does not allow for fission to occur. Without the rods in proper alignment to absorb neutrons, fission occurs, and criticality becomes possible. Criticality does not have to be a longterm event, see criticality accident before attempting to call bs.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:30 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
I suggest you look up the definition of criticality and fission. Make sure you look at spontaneous fission.
Learn something before you post your ignorance.
About 20 years ahead of you there. Fission does not always indicate criticality, we all get that. However, criticality can not occur without fission. If things were as the should be, fission would not be occurring in the fuel. In a "cold" shutdown state.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:27 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Spontaneous fission (SF) is a form of radioactive decay characteristic of very heavy isotopes. Because the nuclear binding energy reaches a maximum at a nuclear mass greater than about 60 atomic mass units (u), spontaneous breakdown into smaller nuclei and single particles becomes possible at heavier masses. Because of constraints in constructing the daughter fission product nuclei, spontaneous fission into known nuclides becomes theoretically possible (that is, energetically possible) for many atomic nuclei (nuclide) with a mass greater than or equal to 93 atomic mass units (u), with the possibility increasing as mass number grows above this boundary. The lightest nuclides found naturally which are in theory subject to spontaneous fission, are niobium-93 and molybdenum-94 (elements 41 and 42 respectively). Spontaneous fission has never been observered in naturally-occurring isotopes of these ligher elements, however. Operationally they are stable isotopes.
In practice, spontaneous fission is feasible over practical observation times, only for atomic masses above 232 u. These are elements heavier than thorium-232, which has a half life approximately equal to the age of the universe, but is the lightest primordial nuclide that has been observed to undergo spontaneous fission. The elements most susceptible to spontaneous fission are the artificially-produced high-atomic-number actinide elements, such as mendelevium and lawrencium, and the trans-actinide elements, such as rutherfordium.
For uranium and thorium, spontaneous fission mode of decay does occur, as noted, but it is not seen for the majority of radioactive decay which is by alpha decay, and so it is usually neglected except for the exact considerations of branching ratios when determining the activity of a sample containing these elements. Mathematically, the criterion for whether spontaneous fission can occur in a time short enough to be observed by present methods, is approximately:
where Z is the atomic number and A is the mass number (e.g., 235 for U-235).
As the name suggests, spontaneous fission gives much the same result as induced nuclear fission. However, like other forms of radioactive decay, it occurs due to quantum tunneling, without the atom having been struck by a neutron or other particle as in induced nuclear fission. Spontaneous fissions release neutrons as all fissions do, so if a critical mass is present, a spontaneous fission can initiate a self-sustaining chain reaction. Also, radioisotopes for which spontaneous fission is a nonnegligible decay mode may be used as neutron sources; californium-252 (half-life 2.645 years, SF branch ratio 3.09%) is often used for this purpose. The neutrons may then be used to inspect airline luggage for hidden explosives, to gauge the moisture content of soil in the road construction and building industries, to measure the moisture of materials stored in silos, and in other applications.
As long as the fissions give a negligible reduction of the amount of nuclei that can spontaneously fission, this is a Poisson process: for very short time intervals the probability of a spontaneous fission is proportional to the length of time.
The spontaneous fission of uranium-238 leaves trails of damage in uranium-bearing minerals as the fission fragments recoil through the crystal structure. These trails, or fission tracks, provide the basis for the radiometric dating technique known as fission track dating.
Spontaneous fission rates: Nuclide Half-life Fission prob. per decay Neutrons per fission Neutrons per (g.s) 235 U 7.04x108 years 7.0x10−11 1.86 1.0x10−5 238 U 4.47x109 years 5.4x10−7 2.07 0.0136 239 Pu 2.41x104 years 4.4x10−12 2.16 2.2x10−2 240 Pu 6569 years 5.0x10−8 2.21 920 250 Cm 8300 years 0.80 ? ? 252 Cf 2.638 years 3.09x10−2 3.73 2.3x1012
In practice 239 Pu will invariably contain a certain amount of 240 Pu due to the tendency of 239 Pu to absorb an additional neutron during production. 240 Pu's high rate of spontaneous fission events makes it an undesirable contaminant. Weapons-grade plutonium contains no more than 7.0% 240 Pu. The rarely-used gun-type atomic bomb has a critical insertion time of about one millisecond, and the probability of a fission during this time interval should be small. Therefore only 235 U is suitable. Almost all nuclear bombs use some kind of implosion method. Spontaneous fission can occur much more rapidly when the nucleus of an atom undergoes superdeformation.
Its called a expression, I was researching nuclear power and weapons, long before you ever brought the demand up. Aprox 20 years ago. I am 32 so you do the math. As for a joke, you are still living in a fantasy world, where Fukushima is in cold shutdown. I think thats pretty funny. If Tepco doesn't know where the fuel is, they can not speculate on the temp of the fuel. All they can do is declare cold shutdown on a possibly completely empty vessel.
IP: Logged
09:18 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Now think real hard about this phonedawgz, this article shows how much Tepco and the media lied in the early days, do you really think they have turned over a new leaf? Do you really believe the fuel is at cold shutdown levels, and no dangerous releases of radiation are occurring? ---------------------------------------------
Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011
Conflict over handling nuclear crisis revealed
By REIJI YOSHIDA Staff writer
Masao Yoshida, general manager of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, believed the worst-case scenario — the "China syndrome" — might be near and he braced for death during the late-night hours of March 14, three days after the crisis started.
News photo Close to the action: Workers wearing protective suits monitor water being sprayed during a cooling operation at the damaged No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant in this March 22 photo released by Tokyo Electric Power Co. TEPCO/AP
Pressure was rising at an alarming rate inside reactor No. 2, keeping plant workers from injecting critical coolant water into the reactor's core to prevent the fuel rods inside from melting down as power had failed following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.
To prevent panic among the plant employees, Yoshida secretly ordered a few of his staff members to prepare a bus for everyone to evacuate except for a small number of key operators.
That was one of the darkest moments of the meltdown crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, as revealed in an interim report by a government investigation panel published Monday.
Yoshida was thinking that the dreaded China syndrome — in which nuclear fuel melts down and burns through the containment vessel, spreading massive amounts of radioactive materials into the environment — might happen soon in reactor 2.
If that were to occur, workers would have to flee and the same catastrophe would also hit reactors 1 and 3, Yoshida judged.
The report reveals a critical lack of knowledge and communication among plant workers and government officials at the prime minister's office, which the panel says exacerbated the meltdown crisis at the plant.
The report, however, also leaves unanswered some key questions about critical moments of the accident, including when Yoshida was preparing the bus to evacuate the workers.
During previous interviews with the media, then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano claimed Tokyo Electric Power Co. CEO Masataka Shimizu told the government that Tepco wanted to withdraw all of the plant workers early March 15, hours after Yoshida ordered his staff to prepare the evacuation bus.
According to Kan, when he met Shimizu early March 15, Shimizu was still "not clear about if (all the workers) would be withdrawn or not," and Kan felt Tepco could eventually abandon the Fukushima plant. Kan thus decided to take full control of the emergency operations at the plant by setting up a joint headquarters of the government and Tepco at the utility's head office in Tokyo.
But according to the panel's report, Shimizu "clearly denied" to Kan that he was thinking of withdrawing all plant workers and abandoning the plant when he met Kan. The panel didn't interview Kan and other top government officials during its investigation.
According to the panel, before the meeting with Kan, Shimizu had told Nobuaki Terasaka, head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, that Tepco "may withdraw" its staff from the plant if the situation deteriorated further.
Shimizu, however, claimed Tepco was thinking of maintaining some staff to keep monitoring the plant, although he didn't explicitly say so to Terasaki because he thought "that was a matter-of-course" assumption that was shared by Terasaki.
But after Shimizu's message was delivered to Terasaka, all of the key Cabinet members, including Kan and Edano, believed Shimizu had proposed that Tepco abandon the plant amid the crisis, according to the report.
At that time, three of the six reactors were facing meltdowns and the coolant temperature was rising in the large spent fuel pool of unit No. 4. Abandoning the entire Fukushima plant would have led to a catastrophe of huge proportions, severely contaminating much of eastern Japan — even possibly Tokyo and its surrounding area — with highly radioactive materials.
"If the plant had been abandoned, all the reactors would have melted down and (the severity of the accident) would far exceed that of the Chernobyl accident. There were no 'letters of withdrawal' in mind" as an option, Kan said in an interview with the Asahi Shimbun on Sept. 6.
During a meeting at the prime minister's office early March 15, everyone there, including Kan, concluded they could "never accept withdrawal of all the workers," which prompted Kan to later arrange the meeting with Shimizu, according to the report.
Since then, Kan and other key ministers have claimed Tepco told them they were withdrawing all of the workers and abandoning the plant, which Tepco officials have denied.
The panel will interview Kan and other key government officials, which will be reflected in the final report that the panel plans to submit to the government by around summer.
By 1 a.m. March 15, the pressure in reactor No. 2 fell slightly, which allowed Tepco to inject coolant water into the core. Yoshida didn't order the evacuation of any plant workers until another crisis took place when an explosion was heard at the reactor No. 2 building around 6 a.m. that day, according to the report.
Hearing the blast, Yoshida had about 650 workers evacuate at 7 p.m. from the Fukushima No. 1 plant to the nearby No. 2 plant.
But 50 workers who were desperately needed to monitor and fix the damaged reactors at No. 1 stayed under Yoshida's order. Eventually they came to be known and praised as the "Fukushima 50" around the world. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111228a5.html
IP: Logged
10:21 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Who would be stupid enough to figure that the only place they found the evidence of Fukushima "going critical" was in the sewers of Tokyo? Now mind you that any large city has separate storm sewers from the sanitation sewers. Storm sewers do not go to waste water treatment plants. Storm sewers are not designed to transport sludge - they are designed to transport rain run off. So this is basically not rain run off. It is what is flushed down the toilets.
Non of the monitoring stations located closer noticed it?
None on site noticed it?
None in the MANY cities closer noticed it?
And based on radioactive sludge found in the sewers of a city of 13,185,502 people, you from Wacko, USA can determine that it must be coming from Fukushia and it must mean the reactor's core or melted core is now critical.
100% WACKO
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:19 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Yep - Your knowledge of nuclear power looks to be that of maybe a 12 year old. I guess that does explain a lot of things.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
Its called a expression, I was researching nuclear power and weapons, long before you ever brought the demand up. Aprox 20 years ago. I am 32 so you do the math. As for a joke, you are still living in a fantasy world, where Fukushima is in cold shutdown. I think thats pretty funny. If Tepco doesn't know where the fuel is, they can not speculate on the temp of the fuel. All they can do is declare cold shutdown on a possibly completely empty vessel.
IP: Logged
11:28 PM
Dec 29th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Who would be stupid enough to figure that the only place they found the evidence of Fukushima "going critical" was in the sewers of Tokyo? Now mind you that any large city has separate storm sewers from the sanitation sewers. Storm sewers do not go to waste water treatment plants. Storm sewers are not designed to transport sludge - they are designed to transport rain run off. So this is basically not rain run off. It is what is flushed down the toilets.
Non of the monitoring stations located closer noticed it?
None on site noticed it?
None in the MANY cities closer noticed it?
And based on radioactive sludge found in the sewers of a city of 13,185,502 people, you from Wacko, USA can determine that it must be coming from Fukushia and it must mean the reactor's core or melted core is now critical.
100% WACKO
Twisting the facts again? There were a plethora of reports of re criticality evidence, and you act as there is only one, this has been ongoing through the months.
IP: Logged
12:04 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
When you look to 'win' the argument rather than look at the actual facts you will come up with believing some pretty outlandish things.
No sensible person would ever believe from the sewage sludge of Tokyo a city far away from Fukushima that is the only indication the reactor has gone critical, and no one else, and no other indications show it.
But if you are wacko enough to look anywhere and believe anything that tends to indicate the story you wish to tell, then you are wacko enough to believe it.
But as usual, facts don't matter much to you dennis_6. What matters is that you can maybe get someone to believe your latest wacked out post.
What will tomorrow's internet dredgings bring up?
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:06 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
As I said in the beginning Fukushima is at least as bad as Chernobyl. Phonedawgz called BS, and now the truth finally vindicates my statements, and exposes phonedawgz for the liar he is.
"Summary Report of RSMC Beijing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident Emergency Response, WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (United Nations), Oct. 27, 2011:
3.3.1 Special reports about impacts on China’s atmosphere of the extremely easterly wind in the area between Japan and Northeast China
To estimate the impacts of Fukushima Nuclear Accident under the conditions that continuous easterly winds happened in Japan and China, RSMC Beijing made the simulation and analysis as below. Assumptions are supposed as follows: (1) five days of continuous easterly wind, similar as that from 23-27 Mar. in 2008; (2) Nuclear leaks occurred in Fukushima and lasted for five days. The total release amount was equal to that of Chernobyl nuclear explosion."
The WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION ran a simulation. To run that simulation they needed to make some assumptions as input. One of those assumptions for the simulation was "Nuclear leaks occurred in Fukushima and lasted for five days. The total release amount was equal to that of Chernobyl nuclear explosion."
You are again an fool when you take that they made assumptions to run their computer simulation and now try to present their simulation input assumptions as facts.
You really understand nothing do you?
Or is it that you are so wacked out to try to 'prove' what you have predetermined in your mind that you just ignore all logic and reason?
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:04 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
After you made some really stupid statement like the one above is where Jazzman would post some diversionary liberal rant about the displaced refugees never being able to live in an apartment again or proper Japanese disposal of the bodies of the dead from the tsunami.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:12 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION ran a simulation. To run that simulation they needed to make some assumptions as input. One of those assumptions for the simulation was "Nuclear leaks occurred in Fukushima and lasted for five days. The total release amount was equal to that of Chernobyl nuclear explosion."
You are again an fool when you take that they made assumptions to run their computer simulation and now try to present their simulation input assumptions as facts.
You really understand nothing do you?
Or is it that you are so wacked out to try to 'prove' what you have predetermined in your mind that you just ignore all logic and reason?
The UN disagrees with you, who are we supposed to believe a green bay packers fan or part of the UN? Games over, you were wrong, be a man and admit it. You seemed to have no problems with Tepco's simulations that stated the fuel stopped just short of getting past the drywell. So once again you are a hypocrite and a liar.
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Well it is impossible to have a deeper discussion with someone when they can't figure out the difference between a premise of a computer simulation and a statement of an organization's belief.
I figured the idiot statement would be something you could understand.
IP: Logged
04:39 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Well it is impossible to have a deeper discussion with someone when they can't figure out the difference between a premise of a computer simulation and a statement of an organization's belief.
I figured the idiot statement would be something you could understand.
So you are admitting Tepco's simulation that stated the fuel stopped short of breaching the drywell concrete may very well be wrong, and the fuel could be in the ground right now? Thought not, hypocrite.
IP: Logged
05:08 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Did I say the results of Tepco's simulation had to be correct?
Well lets see what you said and what I said about the results of Tepco's simulation...
You copied and pasted a story that stated the results of the simulation as fact
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
Fukushima nuclear catastrophe closer than thought
* by: Rick Wallace, Tokyo correspondent * From: The Australian * December 02, 2011 12:00AM
MOLTEN nuclear fuel in one reactor at Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant burned through the steel pressure vessel and three-quarters of the surrounding concrete containment vessel that formed the reactor's last substantial internal barrier.
The revelation of the near "China Syndrome" meltdown is yet another revision of the severity of the disaster following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. http://www.theaustralian.co...frg6so-1226211693322
Now you also posted other stories that did report that it was only the result of a simulation
You also posted
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
The computer simulation is what Tepco has been using to say everything is ok, all this time. This is not a java script simulation, its a westing house simulation. The instrumentation inside the reactor is destroyed, and the reactors are far too hot for anyone to get near.
And I posted
quote
Originally posted by phonedawgz:
The company name is Westinghouse.
Either way the simulation is still just a simulation. It is a guess as to what happened inside the reactor. Changing the facts shows incompetence on the part of the reporter.
The temperature of the water exiting the reactors is 40 to 60 deg C. That is not far too hot for someone to be near.
And you again tried to argue that it was ok to post the results of the simulation as fact
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
Thanks for correcting my spacebar accident. Its good to know you are there to correct every mini netbook induced typo. As for the simulation neither you or Tepco had any problem when the sim stated everything was ok.
And I again posted that the results of the simulation were just that - results of a computer simulation
quote
Originally posted by phonedawgz:
Show me where I said I was fine with reporting the results of a simulator as the actual facts of what was happening inside the reactor.
Or is it you are again wrong? Your disregard for the facts and truth is disgusting.
You sir are nothing but a liar.
So now you are saying I am a hypocrite thus implying that I had stated the results of Tepco's simulation as fact.
Well clearly I did not.
I used to give you the benefit of the doubt when you changed the facts of what was going on. I no longer will do that.
You are again a liar.
A liar again and again and again and again.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:41 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Now what is it that you want to know that you think Tepco knows?
They don't know exactly what the reactors look like yet. When they produce a figure of radiation released, that figure is just an estimate. Their previous simulation showed the reactor cores melting but not melting out of the pressure vessel. With updated data their simulation shows the core melting out of the bottom of the pressure vessel.
The wackos of the left of this have been floating every wild theory their minds can come up with. Stick to the facts and we all would be much better off.
Looks like you did accept Tepco's simulation to me.
IP: Logged
09:06 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Your picture is wrong. The drywell is the area below the reactor vessel that is dry. It is designed to catch the core contents if the reactor were to go into a severe meltdown. The concrete at the bottom of the drywell was intended to do exactly what it did do.
Also the physical building the reactor is in is usually not referred to as a secondary containment. The building has Perforations in it for many reasons including ventilation.
More evidence you agree with Tepco's simulation, since this was in response to the drywell argument.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:08 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The simulation is still just a simulation. It is a scientific guess as to what happened inside the reactor.
And because you post things that you know are false, you are still a liar.
I provided proof you accepted Tepco's simulation. The reason you did is, it marginalizes the disaster. However, when the UN provides a simulation that equates Fukushima with Chernobyl, you won't accept it. That makes you a hypocrite and a liar.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:11 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Hey dennis_6 aka stupid idiot. Thinking that the results of the simulation look to be correct is different than thinking the results of the simulation are somehow facts of what is happening inside the reactor.
Are you really this stupid?
Seriously?
IP: Logged
09:12 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Hey dennis_6 aka stupid idiot. Thinking that the results of the simulation look to be correct is different than thinking the results of the simulation are somehow facts of what is happening inside the reactor.
Are you really this stupid?
Seriously?
So when Tepco provides a simulation that puts a positive light, it can be taken to look correct, and when the UN provides a simulation that puts Tepco in a negative light it must be false? Now I see your logic, agree with phonedawgz and you are telling the truth, disagree with phonedawgz and you are idiotic, alarmist, wacko, liar. Nice.
IP: Logged
09:16 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The concrete at the bottom of the drywall was intended to catch the contents of the reactor if it melted down.
Now tell me stupid idiot, what about that statement even comes close to staying I agree with Tepco's simulation.
**** you are the dumbest **** I have ever encountered.
The drywell argument was over the simulation. Moron. Your statement that the concrete did what it was intended to, proves you believed the simulation was correct in that the fuel was stopped by the drywell concrete. Go back and read next time, before you look like a bigger fool.
You also understand Chernobyl radiation is nothing but estimates and simulations also. right?
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:17 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
NUCLEAR ACCIDENT INTERIM REPORT / Fears slowed SPEEDI info
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI)--the government computer system that projects the dispersal of radioactive substances--was designed to pinpoint which areas should be evacuated after a nuclear accident. However, the government initially withheld SPEEDI's projections after the Fukushima nuclear crisis erupted, claiming that releasing the data "would cause unnecessary panic."
The interim report by the government panel investigating the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant says each organization involved in this process lacked awareness of their responsibility. The report urges these entities to improve how SPEEDI is operated to better protect residents' lives and their dignity.
The Education, Science, Culture, Sports and Technology Ministry oversees SPEEDI. The system estimates where radioactive material will spread based on data, including figures provided by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) on the amount of radioactive material released.
However, the ministry decided such data would be unavailable due to the loss of power at the plant following the massive March 11 earthquake. That evening, it began projecting how much radioactive material would leak every hour, on the assumption that one becquerel was released per hour--a figure in line with Nuclear Safety Commission guidelines.
This data was shared with NISA, the commission and the Fukushima prefectural government. However, none of these entities knew how to make maximum use of this information.
Residents near the nuclear plant started evacuating on the evening of March 11. On this point, the report says SPEEDI was useful.
"[Its projection] was at least effective for determining that residents should evacuate," the report said.
The science ministry, NISA and the commission calculated the projected spread of radioactive material from the crippled plant using SPEEDI. NISA submitted some of SPEEDI's results to the Prime Minister's Office after 1:30 a.m. on March 12.
However, as the results were accompanied by documents suggesting the data "were not very reliable," they were not passed to then Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
The ministry came under growing pressure from the media to reveal the SPEEDI results. On March 15, the ministry had made projections for what would happen if all radioactive material was discharged from the nuclear plant. However, it did not release the figures for fear of panicking the public.
Part of the reason for keeping the data under wraps lay with the disconnect over whether responsibility for SPEEDI operations rested with the ministry or the commission.
Eventually, the Prime Minister's Office ordered the commission be put in charge of SPEEDI. However, the commission continued to withhold some data churned out by the system.
The ministry received a request to disclose more information on March 24. The ministry, NISA and the commission discussed what data should be made public, and concluded information that was not highly accurate should not be released.
However, public criticism of the lack of available information became louder. The organizations eventually relented and released all their SPEEDI data by May 3.
===
Confusing govt policy
The decision to issue evacuation instructions to residents living near the stricken nuclear plant was made by a handful of staffers at the Prime Minister's Office. This would normally have been the responsibility of local government headquarters in the area, but local authorities were not functioning in the hours after the disaster struck.
The government-issued evacuation plans were confusing. The interim report is scathing on this point, saying that residents near the plant were "getting mixed messages" from the government.
At 8:50 p.m. on March 11, Fukushima Gov. Yuhei Sato instructed residents living within a two-kilometer radius of the plant to evacuate. This was the same range as that used in evacuation exercises.
But at a meeting held on the fifth floor of the Prime Minister's Office, Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission; Eiji Hiraoka, director general of NISA; and other officials said the evacuation zone should be expanded to three kilometers from the plant, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's guidelines.
Hiraoka was especially adamant the evacuation area should have a radius of three kilometers.
"Some evacuation drills have included areas within a three-kilometer radius," he said.
At 9:23 p.m.--about half an hour after the first evacuation instruction was issued--the government ordered all residents within three kilometers of the nuclear plant to leave the area.
The evacuation zone was further widened twice on March 12. At 5:44 a.m., the government instructed residents within a 10-kilometer radius of the plant to evacuate, and at 6:25 p.m. the zone's radius was doubled to 20 kilometers after a hydrogen explosion at the No. 1 reactor earlier that day.
At 11 a.m. on March 15, the government instructed residents between 20 and 30 kilometers from the leaking plant to stay indoors.
As the evacuation areas spread further and further, the Minami-Soma city government instructed residents to move away from the city. The Namiemachi town government told its residents who had initially evacuated to other parts of the town to instead take shelter in Nihonmatsu in the prefecture.
These evacuation routes fell directly under the radioactive material being spewed out of the plant's reactors.
SPEEDI's projections had predicted the material would spread over these areas. The interim report says, "[Residents] had no option but to follow instructions issued by their mayors, who were unaware" of the potential danger.
Moreover, the central government and the Fukushima prefectural government differed over the amount of radiation exposure that should be the standard for determining which residents should undergo radiation screening. The safety commission did not properly resolve this "double standard."
The UN simulation did not show anything about the radiation released from Fukushima. The UN simulation was based on an assumption of the amount of radiation released.
Only an idiot would mistake a assumption of the simulation and think it was the conclusion of a simulation of it.
You qualify.
IP: Logged
09:32 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The UN simulation did not show anything about the radiation released from Fukushima. The UN simulation was based on an assumption of the amount of radiation released.
Only an idiot would mistake a assumption of the simulation and think it was the conclusion of a simulation of it.
You qualify.
Translation: The United Nations simulation does not agree with me, and hence you are a idiot. Show me where they actually measured ALL of the radiation released from chernobyl, instead of a assumption.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:36 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Published: December 29th, 2011 at 11:54 AM EDT | Email Article Email Article By Enenews Admin 34 comments Iodine-131 in eastern US may have exceeded EPA limit
Measurement of airborne fission products in Chapel Hill, NC, USA from the Fukushima I reactor accident, By S. MacMullin, G.K. Giovanetti, M.P. Green, R. Henning, R. Holmes, K. Vorren, J.F. Wilkerson, Submitted on 17 Nov 2011 [Emphasis Added]:
We first detected airborne fission products in Chapel Hill between 20:00 UTC on March 18, 2011, and 20:00 UTC on March 19, 2011. We measured a maximum activity of 4.2 ± 0.6 mBq/m3 of 131I in the interval between March 29, 2011 and March 30, 2011. [...]
It should be noted that the measured 131I only represents particulate species collected in the air filters. This accounts for only about 50% of the total 131I in the air. The rest is distributed in gases [...]
The maximum activity detected was 4.2 ± 0.6 mBq/m3 of 131I, which did not include a correction for the volatile iodine components. This is below the air activity limit of 7.8 mBq/m3 set by the Environmental Protection Agency [...]
As the study notes, the 4.2 mBq/m3 figure “accounts for only about 50% of the total 131I in the air” as only particulate species were collected. Therefore, around 8.4 mBq/m3 was likely in the air, which exceeds the EPA limit of 7.8 mBq/m3. http://enenews.com/just-in-...-exceeded-epa-limits
IP: Logged
09:40 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
No they did not make an ASSUMPTION as to the amount of radiation released by Cherynobyl. They made an ESTIMATION.
ASSUMPTION - In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
ESTIMATION - Estimation is the calculated approximation of a result which is usable even if input data may be incomplete or uncertain.
Maybe if you have a 5th grader around he/she can explain it to you.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
Translation: The United Nations simulation does not agree with me, and hence you are a idiot. Show me where they actually measured ALL of the radiation released from chernobyl, instead of a assumption.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:08 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
No they did not make an ASSUMPTION as to the amount of radiation released by Cherynobyl. They made an ESTIMATION.
ASSUMPTION - In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
ESTIMATION - Estimation is the calculated approximation of a result which is usable even if input data may be incomplete or uncertain.
Maybe if you have a 5th grader around he/she can explain it to you.
Whatever you say, you are always right, even when you are wrong. I hope the Tepco checks are worth it. I am sure there were no assumptions in the estimation of Chernobyl's release.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-29-2011).]
