Geiger counter?

[osmium]

Other things to note are where is that material actually going, what form does it take etc. Sure the particles might *reach* the US but if they're still largely up in the jet stream because the ones that get here that fast are super tiny, or if the particles come down relatively quickly and aren't easily stirred up again you're unlikely to see much actual dosage in the population because not much of the material is actually reaching people. It is very easy for people who aren't appropriately informed to make poor conclusions from meteorological data, or wind models because they don't appreciate how to actually apply those models to the situation at hand. They'll see data from wind speeds but ignore data from studies of dust kicked up from china's farms etc.

Also I'm sure Mjolnir and Trantor are aware, but for other people radiation isn't this spooky scary thing it's just part of the world. There are sometimes issues with specific materials such as iodine because the human body absorbs them and they hang around for a while continuing to give you a localized radioactive dosage (thyroid for iodine). I've usually seen radiation measured in exposure (rad) and human absorption (rem) because while the other measures can be useful at the end of the day you really only care about what dose humans actually take. 360 mrem is a pretty standard yearly dosage. 40mrem of that is from "internal emitters" (essentially from food, like potassium-40) It's like 10-20 mrem for each view of a chest x-ray( usually 2), 1/10th that for mamograms and like 30 something for a full set of dental x-rays. Given all of that you typically can't determine if someone has received a 10 rem dosage and it's hard below 25 rem, but obvious over 100 rem (which is what like 30x a yearly dosage). The more acute the dosage, or the more easily absorbed the given isotope is the more drastic the effect. Most of those numbers are from the studies done post hiroshima.

For x-ray machines acute exposure of 500rem gives you the equivalent of a 1st degree thermal burn and 1000rem gives you a second degree burn, although that's more interesting information than really applicable to much lower dose exposure from nuclear material. (obviously there are also much more significant lingering effects like poor wound healing and much later skin cancer from radiation burns that aren't a concern for thermal burns).

Truthfully I'd be more worried about remembering to put on sun screen next time you go to the beach or about that plume of concrete dust from the sidewalk construction outside your front door, thus far the numbers I've seen as reasonable estimates don't cause me undue worry.

Oh yeah to convert for the people who are using sieverts rather than roetgen (actually Roentgen equivalent man units hence rem) 1Sv = 100rem so 1mrem = .01m Sv.

Basically there are a bunch of units depending on what you are measuring there are units like the Bq(Becquerel) that measure how many decay events occur per unit time, there are measurements that determine how much radiation is passing through an area like R(Roentgen) and finally there are measurements of how much radiation is actually absorbed like the rem (which depends on a number of factors like the energy of the radiation emitted i.e. penetration power and the material make up of the thing absorbing said radiation).
yay links http://www.jplabs.com/html/units_of_radiation.HTM

-O

[Trantor]

...
Basically there are a bunch of units depending on what you are measuring there are units like the Bq(Becquerel) that measure how many decay events occur per unit time, there are measurements that determine how much radiation is passing through an area like R(Roentgen) and finally there are measurements of how much radiation is actually absorbed like the rem (which depends on a number of factors like the energy of the radiation emitted i.e. penetration power and the material make up of the thing absorbing said radiation).
...

The downside is, all this confuses Joe Average to the max. Even an interested Joe.
A few model calculations "(amount x)Bq (element) -> factors x,y,z... -> (y)dose (mSv/whatever)" would be helpful, but at least in the german part of the internet i didn´t found any. I did some calculations on different elements myself (e.g. ingested Cs137, Rn222 indoor exposure etc), compared the results to common consensus, and they roughly match, but it´s still not a very satisfying situation.
Are there some model calculations out there in the english area of the web?

[Mjolnir]

Sieverts make a pretty convenient dosage unit. 1 Sv will be enough to induce notable radiation sickness in most people. More than 3 Sv is likely to cause death without treatment. Eating a banana gives you a 100 microsievert dose. This is a unit of overall dose...radiation received while in proximity to an external source, or from an ingested source as it decays. The effects vary widely depending on where on the body the dose is applied...this is why iodine and cesium are a concern, they accumulate in the thyroid and bones. They also depend on the amount of time the dose is spread over...long periods of low intensity radiation will not cause radiation sickness, though they can still cause cumulative damage that increases cancer risk. At extremely low rates of exposure, it can cause cellular damage without activating the body's mechanisms for dealing with it, and cause more problems than slightly higher doses...the radiation homesis mentioned. It's not exactly a positive effect, the negative effects of radiation are simply minimized at something above zero exposure.

What the workers in Fukushima are mainly concerned with is external radiation from the reactors and spent fuel, they look at the Sv/h a human will receive in a given area and limit their time there. What is of concern elsewhere is absorption of radioactive contaminants, the direct radiation is too small to be of concern. WIkipedia's article on the sievert unit has some good comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Dose_examples

Becquerels are decay events per second, easily estimated with a geiger counter given the proper measurement setup...this coupled with particle energy measurements and information about half life can let you quickly and accurately identify and measure radioactive materials present in extremely minute quantities. The relation to sieverts depends on the material involved, due to the differences in damage caused by the radiation and differences in half life. 1 Bq of cesium-137 has more atoms than 1 Bq of iodine-131 because of its longer half-life, and if absorbed will cause a higher dose over time. It's a good unit for specifying the total amount of radioactive material present, or for setting concentration limits for specific isotopes.

edit: becquerels.

[Mjolnir]

Radioactivity measurements in easily machine-usable form: http://www.dailyack.com/2011/03/radioac ... japan.html

[osmium]

That's a very good link. And they point out another good info that I forgot to mention, a plane flight (due decreased atmospheric shielding from being at high altitude) is like ~8x a dental x-ray or 4x the daily dose (meaning it's like a ~1% increase in the yearly dosage).

Truthfully I don't think the units in this case are as nice as even kelvin or celsius Roentgen or Sieverts.

As for models it entirely depends. The reason why I prefer the absorption units is that they've already done all of that complicated stuff, and you can just look at their assumptions and compare them to other people's calculations. There is little need to look at the "counts" and doing like time averages and subtracting out background and calculating the radiation dosage (adjusted for radiation type&energy, absorption etc) unless you're actually on the ground with a geiger counter and even then really unless you're hanging out for a long time or taking data for some reason you're just looking too keep the counter from "screaming" at you (where the individual clicks or beeps overlap so much as to make a relatively constant albeit "noisy" pitch). The issue here is things like what to do with alpha particle sources. They basically don't effect you because they are absorbed by the dead layer of skin cells, but if they get inside they can do lots of damage. So which models do you want? It's much easier, I think, to find dosage information for a given isotope than it is to try to calculate stuff.

If you really wanted models I would suggest web of science or www.sciencedirect.com and search for the isotope and some keywords and see who has published what on the subject.

-O

[Trantor]

Radioactivity measurements in easily machine-usable form: http://www.dailyack.com/2011/03/radioac ... japan.html

Nice Powerpointengineering*. Maybe a tad too optimistic?





*yes, i know. He´s an Apple-guy. I chose my words carefully.

[Arioch]

Leave it to xkcd to come up with the cool chart.

[Mjolnir]

I'm not sure how a CSV file of numeric measurements is either optimistic or "Powerpoint engineering".

Here's a paper on some measurements taken in Seattle. The new stuff is easily distinguished from material left over from old bomb tests by instruments capable of measuring the particle energy...short lived volatiles from recently active fuel rods, probably from the reactor venting done when they started pumping in seawater.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/110 ... 4853v1.pdf

[Trantor]

I'm not sure how a CSV file of numeric measurements is either optimistic or "Powerpoint engineering".

This statement of yours surprises me. I had the impression that you´re a quite logical thinking human being.

But i´ll explain: Look at this and this.

So, on the one side some random wannabedude relying on questionable official TEPCO-"data". Stating something retarded* like "I think everyone should take a deep breath, step back, and look at the evidence which is suggesting that this is not another Chernobyl in the making. It's may not even be another Three Mile Island."

On the other side Dr. Gerhard Wotawa from the austrian Institute of Meteorology and Geodynamics, with international reputation. And direct access to CTBTO-data. Stating that alone in the first three days the amount auf released radioactivity was between 20 and 60 percent of Chernobyl (That alone would make FuckUpShima INES 7).


Now, who to believe?



And, BTW, a little ontopic (if somebody is still interested): Since the first (heavily diluted) parts of the plume reached northern germany, my geiger counter shows some interesting spikes up to 0,3microsievert. Normally it idles around 0,04 without spikes.
No reason to panic, but to say it in Spocks words:









* Yes, retarded. And very disappointing from someone who calls himself "Scientist". A real Scientist would never state such a dumb comment on a process still in the making.

[icekatze]

hi hi

It is pretty clear to me that a lot of biased nonsense (and quite likely deliberate disinformation by people with vested interests) is going around on both sides of the nuclear debate. The truth is out there, but I doubt that laymen like myself will know what it is until we can see the aftermath for ourselves.

[sunphoenix]

I feel nuclear power is indeed a grand future for clean energy for mankind... IF they STOP cutting corners when making these plants and build them right! They need to be showing proper respect for how dangerous nuclear energy is and stop doing things 'half-assed'!

[Mjolnir]

I'm not sure how a CSV file of numeric measurements is either optimistic or "Powerpoint engineering".

This statement of yours surprises me. I had the impression that you´re a quite logical thinking human being.

But i´ll explain: Look at this and this.

...I'm still not sure if you're even serious or just pulling my leg. A CSV file with numeric measurements is Powerpoint engineering, while a series of slides isn't? Are we thinking of the same Powerpoint?

So, on the one side some random wannabedude relying on questionable official TEPCO-"data". Stating something retarded* like "I think everyone should take a deep breath, step back, and look at the evidence which is suggesting that this is not another Chernobyl in the making. It's may not even be another Three Mile Island."

On the other side Dr. Gerhard Wotawa from the austrian Institute of Meteorology and Geodynamics, with international reputation. And direct access to CTBTO-data. Stating that alone in the first three days the amount auf released radioactivity was between 20 and 60 percent of Chernobyl (That alone would make FuckUpShima INES 7).

Now, who to believe? 8-)

Well, the CSV file potentially has transcription/conversion errors, but the original sources are available. The slides are from a guy claiming a second Chernobyl from data that he has access to but hasn't published, nor has he given details of his analysis. Given the actual measurements around Fukushima and the rest of Japan, the Chernobyl comparison automatically gets him a rejection.

The radioactive material currently being measured at distant points is would be that released in the reactor ventings done when they started pumping seawater in. The isotope ratios clearly mark it as being from very recently active fuel: there's just not much of the iodine isotopes left in the spent fuel pools to be emitted. I can only guess what he did, but it appears he made a wild extrapolation that those rates of release were sustained day after day. Time series data from stations in Japan show a few sharp spikes, and radiation at the site has been steadily dropping.

And the data's from JAEA, MEXT, and others. Some of it is from TEPCO, but they're not the only people in Japan measuring radiation. TEPCO's certainly not behind the work being done at the University of Washington (http://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/). Just the idea of even trying to cover up a massive radioactive release is...not viable.

And, BTW, a little ontopic (if somebody is still interested): Since the first (heavily diluted) parts of the plume reached northern germany, my geiger counter shows some interesting spikes up to 0,3microsievert. Normally it idles around 0,04 without spikes.

You're some guy on the internet with a Geiger counter, an instrument that takes training and a great deal of care in usage to produce accurate measurements, measuring levels that are essentially at background, far below background in much of the world. You've given little detail of your equipment and procedure, and the units you gave for your measurements aren't even complete. (0.3 µSv accumulated over what period of time?)

I trust the work done by the people at the University of Washington Physics department and the IAEA a lot more than the measurements you've made.

* Yes, retarded. And very disappointing from someone who calls himself "Scientist". A real Scientist would never state such a dumb comment on a process still in the making.

Saying to calm down and look at the evidence is disappointing and unscientific?

[Mjolnir]

I feel nuclear power is indeed a grand future for clean energy for mankind... IF they STOP cutting corners when making these plants and build them right! They need to be showing proper respect for how dangerous nuclear energy is and stop doing things 'half-assed'!

Not sure half-assed is the right description here. These 30-40 year old reactors took ground accelerations considerably above their design values and shut down cleanly, and then got swamped by a tsunami that was more than twice as high as the largest they expected to receive. They should probably keep doing whatever they're doing to earthquake-proof the things (it obviously works), and just assume tsunamis will get over the walls and design to withstand that (keep the building with the generators/pumps from flooding during the relatively short period of inundation). And install passive or independently powered emergency ventilation in those buildings! (That's something TEPCO might be directly to blame for...I think such vents were a later manufacturer-recommended modification, which TEPCO may not have ever installed.)

[Trantor]

I feel nuclear power is indeed a grand future for clean energy for mankind... IF they STOP cutting corners when making these plants and build them right! They need to be showing proper respect for how dangerous nuclear energy is and stop doing things 'half-assed'!

The only inherent safe type of NPP would be the sun.

Ok, it´ll be quite a while to 100% renewable energy, so for a safe type of NPP there would be the LFTR. Sadly the military–industrial complex* is not interested because it´s not dual-use.



*that´s what Ike said...

[Trantor]

...I'm still not sure if you're even serious or just pulling my leg. A CSV file with numeric measurements is Powerpoint engineering, while a series of slides isn't? Are we thinking of the same Powerpoint?

Yes, but you´re obviously not getting the point. Hint: "Powerpointengineer" is a derogative word.

Since it is used in Germany exactly like this i thought it is common in the US, too. If it´s not, then sorry for the confusion.

The slides are from a guy...

...with a scientific doctors degree and leading an institute of international reputation...

claiming a second Chernobyl from data that he has access to but hasn't published

...because CTBTO forbids publication...

nor has he given details of his analysis.

He has. On German. Sorry, decrying Dr. Wotawa is futile.

Given the actual measurements around Fukushima and the rest of Japan, the Chernobyl comparison automatically gets him a rejection.

Oh, those precise, public "measurements"... Yes, yes, there is no danger for nobody, and a 12 miles evacuating zone is sufficient...

What about the CTBTO? Or the measurements out on the sea? Remember the westerlies?

You're some guy on the internet with a Geiger counter, an instrument that takes training and a great deal of care in usage to produce accurate measurements, measuring levels that are essentially at background, far below background in much of the world. You've given little detail of your equipment and procedure, and the units you gave for your measurements aren't even complete. (0.3 µSv accumulated over what period of time?)

Your spin doesn´t work. I never claimed to be scientific. I just asked for other independent/amateur-data. That´s all i´m interested in.


But to turn the table: Who are you? Why are you fiercely defending an industry that apparently fucked up everything?

Nah, just joking. From the first posting on i didn´t wanted to start an ideological dispute because it is pointless.

I trust the work done by the people at the University of Washington Physics department

Do you have some urls?

and the IAEA a lot more than the measurements you've made.

The same IAEA that says Fuckupshima is just INES 5?

* Yes, retarded. And very disappointing from someone who calls himself "Scientist". A real Scientist would never state such a dumb comment on a process still in the making.

Saying to calm down and look at the evidence is disappointing and unscientific?

What "evidence", when the process is still in the making?

Look, this argument is Offtopic and leads to nothing. The whole thing is sadly still in progress. We´ll see the results later. And then we´ll see who is wrong or right.
The internet doesn´t forget.

[Trantor]

Sry for necroposting, but i´m delighted to announce that germanys right-wing(!)-goverment today abandonded nuclear energy.
Effective on the seven oldest Blocks by today (and this is a very happy moment for everyone in northern germany, as crappy NPP Kruemmel will never be fired up again, YAY!), and on the last PWRs until around 2020, depending on the situation.
This comes together with investments in infrastructure, renewable energies and funding new storage technologies. Germany will then be the first leading industrial country without nukes, and this will trash the feigned argument that nukes are vital for a industrial country. Also this will give germanys industry a headstart in green energy systems, so we can later export them.
Bisniss, you know.

So, that seems to me as the only positive outcome of Fuckupshima* until today.

And on the initial topic:
Well, little INES turned 7 somewhere inbetween (congratulations afterwards btw, ),
public interest has faded (surprise, surprise),
a proposed grassroot-geigercounter-network didn´t start,
nuke-industry is business as usual - lies, malicious deceit and incompetence,
but at least my own readings say no more elevated level compared to end of march.
(Just for the ones who are maybe still interested. )





*BTW: Did you know that "Fukushima" means "Happy Island"?

[Cdr Straker]

Good for you! Let us know how much your electric bill rises, M'kay?

Meanwhile, until your new unicorn poop-fueled generators start churning out all of that clean, renewable power, maybe you guys can buy more electricity from your neighbors....... who are still using nuke-power and fossil fuels after watching the "green-energy" economy in Spain implode.

[Mjolnir]

Nobody died due to nuclear power in this incident. The adverse environmental impact was quite minimal (local fisheries might get some badly needed time to recover a bit due to the radiation scare reducing demand). These were obsolete reactors...newer, safer designs just wouldn't have had the issues that afflicted these after cooling was lost. Even these antiques could have been better protected from the tsunami if we'd known it was necessary. And of course, Germany isn't particularly prone to 9+ magnitude earthquakes and mega-tsunamis in the first place. Clearly, the best course of action is to abandon the safest of the large scale power generation technologies and replace it with...well, something. You can just buy power from your neighbors and brag about dropping nuclear power in the meantime.

Nuclear is green energy...and the only green energy that can scale up to meet our energy needs. The only other option is coal, and that'll cause devastating environmental damage in the short term and kill us slowly in the long term. The only "clean coal" is that left in the ground. None of the various renewables scale up as needed, and many turn out on closer inspection to be very non-"green". Humanity has a choice between going nuclear now, or going nuclear when we finally realize that energy problems can't just be wished away, after wrecking our environment and producing widespread misery due to ever worsening environmental damage and energy shortages.

An update on the status of Fukushima: from the beginning, it was known the cores had sustained damage, with reactor 1 expected to have 50-70% of the core damaged by overheating. Combining computer simulations with measurements taken from the reactors over time and with better measurements taken more recently, it looks like the cores did worse than thought, with only reactor 3 having undamaged fuel assemblies left, and with temperatures in some areas getting high enough for the pellets themselves to melt. The fuel in reactors 1 and 2 is sitting in the water at the bottom of the reactor, that in 3 is either sitting on undamaged rods or also in the water at the bottom of the reactor...in both cases it has reached steady state, and is not in danger of melting further. It's actually easier to deal with in the short term...it's safely under water, further rapid changes in temperature can't happen, and there's no worries of a steam explosion from chunks of hot core falling into the water while people are working near the damaged reactors.

This will make cleanup much more difficult though, they've got a more extensive version of the problem experienced at Three Mile Island, with fuel assemblies welded to each other and to the reactor structure...there's a lot more work ahead to extract the fuel from the reactors. A more immediate problem is that reactor 1's pressure vessel is leaking water into its containment structure, and that seems to be leaking some of it into the building basements. The containment structures are designed to be flooded when moving fuel in and out of the reactors, so hopefully patching that leak won't be too difficult, but they've got a big mess underneath to clean up now, and they'll want to check the other containment buildings carefully to make sure they're still watertight.

There's been an incredible amount of information made available...frequently-updated radiation measurements from a wide variety of locations, temperature and pressure measurements of the reactors themselves (albeit with damaged equipment and uncertain accuracy), photography and video...the only malicious deceit has been on the part of the anti-nuke nuts, spreading panic about radiation, claims of reactors exploding and comparing the incident to Chernobyl, and you'll have to do something to support claims of incompetence. Keep in mind that there was no reason to expect an earthquake and tsunami of this severity, and that the widespread devastation made it difficult to locate needed equipment and personnel and get them to the plant. In hindsight, there's things they could have done better, and TEPCO's definitely got a bad record, but this incident's been handled about as well as could be expected given the circumstances.

[Trantor]

Good for you! Let us know how much your electric bill rises, M'kay?

We expect something around 50€/private Person/Year.
That´s nothing compared to the loss of a whole life.
You know, when you worked more than half of your life to buy yourself a little house, like me, you won´t be so pleased if you lose it because some "experts" irradiate it forever. Ask the people of Itate how they feel.

But that´s a lesson only life or thinking for yourself can tell you, not your neocon-PR.

Meanwhile, until your new unicorn poop-fueled generators start churning out all of that clean, renewable power, maybe you guys can buy more electricity from your neighbors....

Look, we are Umiak, err, Germans. We could bury you with capacity. Max peak consumption ever was around 85GW. Normal consumption is around 68GW.
But all our Powerplants together can deliver 129GW, with the green energy part calculated at their average, not their theoretic max. And we have a so-called cold reserve with another 12GW, just in case.
All our NPP, though they´re worldwide overall by far the most productive ones, could ideally deliver around 23GW, if all of them are working
(and unlike the french, we NEVER get mails that request us to save energy because their crappy NPP can´t deliver).
Now do your math.

And BTW: The renewables are already at an average of 22GW. Our unicorn-poop is an economy-factor. Bisniss, y´know.

The only problem is actually, that our beloved neighbours will blow something up, and that unfavourable winds will lay waste on our land. BTST, ´86.

who are still using nuke-power and fossil fuels after watching the "green-energy" economy in Spain implode.

Again just neocon-chitchat.
1.) Spanish economy crisis wasn´t triggered by green energy.
2.) We´re not spanish. We´re germans. We´re rich, and we can do the math.
Bisniss, as i sad before. And you will be welcome to buy our tech then.
Remember: This is our right-wing gov, not the tree-huggers. And as they can´t think for themself, they get their orders from the Industry. And Industry says, green energy is the next big thing (already).
So they now get massive funding to solve the rest of the problems, i.e. storage, and then they make shitloads of money.
We´re not talking about costs, we´re talking investment. Bisniss, y´know.

To say it with the Barsam´s words: "This day will be long remembered, little brother."
And to repeat myself: "We´ll see who is wrong or right.
The internet doesn´t forget."

Edit: Linkfix.

[Trantor]

Thors Hammer, my good ol´ friend!

Nobody died due to nuclear power in this incident.

Just wait and see.

And why does somebody have to die first?
Isn´t it enough that many will suffer from cancer?

It comes in very handy for the nukeindustry that humans die anyways. And that age can´t be calculated. All the Liquidators that died after Chernobyl officially - always - died of "natural" causes in the end, but what triggered them?

Clearly, the best course of action is to abandon the safest of the large scale power generation technologies and replace it with...well, something. You can just buy power from your neighbors and brag about dropping nuclear power in the meantime.

See post above. Your knowledge seems not to be up-to-date.

uclear is green energy...and the only green energy that can scale up to meet our energy needs.

Awww. How come this oh-so green and supersafe energy cannot be insured?

What about the atrocities in the whole chain? From mining (see impact from the Grasberg-mine alone, or how the miners in africa suffer), then the oh-so clean processing? And reprocessing?

And don´t forget about all our supersafe ultimate disposal places!
Oh. Wait one. There isn´t. And there will never be. Gosh. This shit radiates for a million years, where to put it save? How much will this cost? And will it be save forever? Or do we just curse or children for our shareholder benefit, and leave it to them? (Did i hear someone saying "transmutation"? )

An update on the status of Fukushima: from the beginning, it was known the cores had sustained damage,

No, sir. From the beginning on there were lies and malicious deceit from the officials.
The one who published first that there was something bad going on was fiercly decried by you.

Combining computer simulations with measurements taken from the reactors over time and with better measurements taken more recently, it looks like the cores did worse than thought,

Now you see my with my jaw dropped.
Weren´t you the one who decried said measurements from the CTBTO? The one who brought up this guy from England with his powerpoint-yadayada-"simulations" that said everything will be in perfect order, nothing happened?
Let´s check: Ah, yes, it´s all in the Thread. Sry, you lose.

Keep in mind that there was no reason to expect an earthquake and tsunami of this severity,

Lies, lies, lies and malicious deceit. There was a tsunami in the same region around 1900 with a height of 14m. And that wasn´t the only one. They simply ignored it.


You know what´s funny?
You´re subtly trying to make me look like an ideologist (anti-nuke-nut), but it´s not me who´s the ideologically blinded here.

And that btw is an interesting phenomenon, because i´d normally consider you a well educated and intelligent person. You show a lot of knowledge in your posts, especially in science and tech topics, but at least in this vital case you draw utterly false conclusions. I really puzzle about this.