Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum
TEPCO risks all at Fukushima
http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/JAP-02-181113.html
TEPCO risks all at Fukushima
By Victor Kotsev
Nov 18, '13
On Monday, by far the most dangerous nuclear operation attempted in human history was set to begin in the crippled Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan, the removal of more than 1,300 spent fuel rods and some 200 unused rods from a reservoir on top of Unit 4.
While the undertaking is necessary, the worst-case scenario would pale in comparison the triple meltdowns of 2011 and necessitate the evacuation of the capital Tokyo.
Experts are unanimous that the engineering challenges are on a scale unseen to date, given that the fuel pool was damaged in a fire caused by a cooling failure and a subsequent explosion during the meltdowns. If the fuel rods, some of which may be damaged, come too close to each other, there is a chance that the nuclear chain reaction would resume, which would be catastrophic in the presence of so much fissile material, as well as extremely difficult to stop.
If, on the other hand, a fuel rod breaks or is exposed to air and ignites, this would release into the atmosphere a massive amount of radiation, likely necessitating the evacuation of the plant. The total amount of radiation present in the pool is estimated at 14,000 times that released by the atomic bomb dropped at Hiroshima, or about the same as in the combined cores of the three reactors that melted down.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)that things go somewhat as planned.
This is a perfect example of why many of us who are against using nuclear energy feel as we do. I've always felt it was only a matter of time before something like this was to happen. My worst fear is here. I fear as our 100 plus nuclear power plants age that we'll be seeing mishaps here in the USA. I have to remind anyone that it matters not what causes this, it simply matters that it happens.
The scary part is the dangers involved due to the radiation that can be so great as to kill within hours that can prevent humans, robots too, from getting close enough to try to mitigate the damage.
As I said earlier in another post we can hope that TEPCO pulls this off without a hitch.
Lochloosa
(16,065 posts)"If there is another earthquake and building four collapses ... I am going to evacuate my family from Boston," Dr Helen Caldicott, an influential Australian anti-nuclear advocate, said during a recent conference.
caraher
(6,278 posts)That truly says it all about Caldicott's credibility on risk. I admire what she did for nuclear disarmament, but this kind of statement makes no sense at all.
pscot
(21,024 posts)about the scale of the danger involved.
caraher
(6,278 posts)Boston is, all things considered, a pretty safe place to be should things take a turn for the worse at Fukushima. It just doesn't really make any sense at all to speak of evacuating from a city on the other side of the world. It's as if said I'd go hide in the basement the moment I heard there was a tornado in a state 1000 miles away - that doesn't give anyone a sense of the danger of a tornado, it makes me look like Chicken Little.
If anything, the point it makes about the "scale of danger" is the enormous disconnect between serious discussion of the very genuine risks the Japanese may face and the lurid scaremongering some public figures prefer to engage in. It should be more than sufficient to discuss what could happen in Japan, where the worst (and probably only detectable) effects would occur. Instead, we're treated to bizarre statements about impossible evacuations of places facing no credible threat from this disaster. This detracts from the credibility of those sounding the alarm, rather than bolstering their case.
CRH
(1,553 posts)Lochloosa
(16,065 posts)I understand her concern.
RC
(25,592 posts)http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/2013/0208/240078.shtml
171,000 people died from too much water. Why are we not fear mongering about dams and hydroelectric power? Name one, just one nuclear accident that has claimed anywhere near so many people, in so short of time.
There wasn't much to clean up, as it all got washed away.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)single disaster. You're talking about 171,000 people getting washed away. We're looking at potentially 10s of millions of people. You're talking about a province. We're talking about an entire country potentially rendered uninhabitable.
If any of the severely compromised sites at Fukushima re-ignites, then all of Fukushima will run out of control. That means the plants at Fukushima still operational will not be maintainable, and they will go out of control. The resulting chain reaction, as adjacent sites that are downwind from Fukushima will become non-maintainable.
You're talking about potentially rendering an entire country uninhabitable.
You're also comparing apples and oranges. It's not how many have been killed to date. It's about the catastrophic consequences of one major disaster.
RC
(25,592 posts)Wrong, it is about how many have been killed to date. That is how we calculate disasters, by the number of people killed. Whether it is war, air plane crashes, disease, 9/11, whatever.
Where are these 10 of millions of people you speak of? Japan? First some facts. The Earth is round, not flat. Radiation goes in straight lines, so the curvature of the earth acts as a shield. Normally anything over 20 miles away is safely below the horizon. Next, the radiation drops off with the square of the distance. Twice as far= 1/4 the radiation. It does not matter what kind of radiation. The wind and ocean currents protect Japan south of Fukushima, by flowing North and East, where the radiation get diluted to barely detectable levels. They have to use isotopes, not Geiger counters to detect the radiation, because the radiation is below the normal background levels. Also the distance between Tokyo and Fukushima is 148 miles, with mountains in between. Those mountains act as a shield. Tokyo is in not much danger here.
The cause of both disasters can be traced back to politics, not the engineers.
Fear mongering often comes from ignorance for use against he ignorant.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The entire world obviously disagrees with your absolutely bizarre, nuclear loving perspective about what disasters we should care about.
Perhaps you should consider that it is your values that are skewed, rather than sneering at the vast majority.
RC
(25,592 posts)
You are talking about values, not facts. You have a case of the ass because people care about the consequences of the Fukushima Meltdowns when you don't want them to. To that end you trot out a totally offbase argument that boils down to an assertion that unless a given disaster is the worst disaster ever, no one should be concerned about it.
It sounds dumb when it is clearly stated, doesn't it?
RC
(25,592 posts)Is not Tokyo 148 miles from Fukushima? Does not radiation travel in a straight line? Would not the earth itself shield locations beyond the horizon from radiation? Would not any intervening mountains shield the radiation? Does not radiation obey the square root law? Twice the distance, equals one forth the radiation? Does not the wind and ocean currents flow away from Fukushima and the rest of Japan? Those are facts. It is also a fact that nuclear is safer than coal, or any other fossil fuel, given the number of people killed by the various technologies. Even safer than hydro. That's another fact. BTY, hydro is hell on the environment because of the needed dams.
Just because you can't defend something, does not mean that something is totally off base. In fact, it could mean it is spot on.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Ok, we'll do it your way.
Is not Tokyo 148 miles from Fukushima?
The center of Toyko is, but the Tokyo metropolitan area and its 12 million people sits in the middle of the Kanto Plain, which is home to 42,607,376 people.
Does not radiation travel in a straight line?
Yes.
Would not the earth itself shield locations beyond the horizon from radiation?
No. Not when the contaminated smoke and particulates are carried and deposited "beyond the horizon".
Would not any intervening mountains shield the radiation?
No.
Does not radiation obey the square root law? Twice the distance, equals one forth the radiation?
Yes
Does not the wind and ocean currents flow away from Fukushima and the rest of Japan?
Not always by any means. Just like nearly every other place the winds are variable and often come out of the N, NNE, NE, ENE, and E. Just because they got lucky once is certainly no guarantee they would be again.
Those are facts.
Since fire and smoke are the anticipated dispersal mechanisms for contaminated particulate pollution, that would make most of what you wrote and the entire point you are striving for inaccurate, wouldn't you say?
It is also a fact that nuclear is safer than coal, or any other fossil fuel, given the number of people killed by the various technologies. Even safer than hydro. That's another fact. BTY, hydro is hell on the environment because of the needed dams.
Safer when it is operating properly. But we aren't dealing with nuclear operating properly, are we?
bananas
(27,509 posts)Radiation can be scattered, reflected, refracted, and diffracted.
Radiation can also be carried by radioactive isotopes.
Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses reflecting infrared radiation back to earth.
The reason the sky is blue instead of black is because blue frequencies are scattered by the atmosphere.
If you remember the Apollo lunar photos, the sky was black, and all shadows were black.
That's because there was no atmosphere to scatter light across the sky and into shadows.
Sunlight fills your house during the daytime because it is scattered by the atmosphere and reflected by nearby structures into your windows, then it is reflected off the walls, ceilings, and floors inside your house.
The same thing happens with radiation from a nuclear plant - it's called "skyshine"
When a child puts a stick into water, he asks why does the stick bend?
The stick doesn't bend - the light from the stick bends.
This is refraction, and it happens at the spent fuel pools too.
Different frequencies of light refract at different angles, that's how prisms and rainbows work.
The single slit and double slit experiments are examples of diffraction.
Radioactive isotopes don't go in a straight line, and they release radiation everywhere they go.
If the source of the radioactive isotopes is Fukushima,
then it's not incorrect to say that the radiation came from Fukushima.
RC
(25,592 posts)Conflating high energy, nuclear radiation i.e.,gamma radiation, with light and other radio waves? Really? Gamma rays may be considered electromagnetic radiation, but they sure do not behave like radio waves or light,
The radiation we are talking about here is radioactivity, of the type some here are overly paranoid about. Yeah that radiation. And yes, that type of radiation, is "hard radiation" and that does go in a straight line. At least until it hits a nucleus of an atom and is ether absorbed or it knocks something out.
Isotopes are elements, atoms, that differ from the "normal" elements only by the number of neutrons it has. Isotopes behave like the chemical elements they are. The radiation from the isotopes does go in a straight line. The isotopes themselves are the source of the radioactivity, not the radiation itself.
Radiation from a nuclear power plant? "Skyshine"? A term taken for astronomy for light pollution from a city? Really? There is more radiation radioactivity from a coal burning plant. Or granite counter tops, or even common bricks, than from your run of the mill nuclear power plant. And don't forget the potassium in the common banana. And while we are on the subject, did you know 3 feet of earth will stop most gamma radiation? So those mountains will shield radioactivity from Fukushima.
No wonder some people are paranoid and ignorant about nuclear power. They do not understand enough high school physics to know what they are talking about.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Gamma SkyShine Calculations for Shielded Sources
by Michael S. Bassett
<snip>
1.1 The Skyshine Problem
Gamma-ray doses outside of areas containing nuclear materials can generally
be broken into two components. The first component is the direct dose
contribution arising from gamma photons that travel directly from the source to
the detector location. The direct component can usually be evaluated easily using
ray analysis techniques (Ch84). The second dose component, which is generally
more difficult to calculate, is due to indirectly scattered radiation and includes
skyshine radiation, radiation streaming through ducts, and radiation reflected from
surfaces (albedo radiation) (Ch84). Skyshine dose refers to the dose caused by the
reflection of photons in the air back to a ground target. In this study, approximate
methods for calculating the indirect skyshine gamma dose are considered.
Outside of nuclear facilities, the skyshine dose can become an important
component of the total offsite dose rate (Pe84, An87) and has become an important
concern in the radiological assessment of these facilities. Skyshine dose
calculations are required for accident analysis calculations at PWR and BWR
nuclear power plants (Pe84, An87). In BWR power plants the movement of
nitrogen-16 from the reactor to the turbine room also requires an estimate of the
skyshine dose to be made during normal operations (An87). The storage of nuclear
waste both above ground, in buildings, and below ground will likewise require an
analysis of the skyshine dose during the design of the disposal facility.
Evaluation of the skyshine dose is, in general, more complicated than the
ray-analysis techniques used for analyzing the direct dose (Fa87). The techniques
used to evaluate the skyshine dose can range from engineering approximations
(Pe84) to complete numerical solutions of the multigroup transport equation.
1.2 Previous Skyshine Investigations
<snip>
(edit to add the by-line, some boldface, and underline "required" several times)
bananas
(27,509 posts)they're mostly pdf's:
About 1,960 results (0.09 seconds)
Search Results
NUREG/CR-0781, "The Skyshine-11 Procedure: Calculation ... - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1023/ML102310286.pdf?
An updated version of the SKYSHINE Monte Carlo procedure has been developed ... operation of the SKYSHINE-II code on the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
SNC - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0103/ML010360249.pdf?
Oct 2, 2003 - calculation uses the SKYSHINE II particle scattering code, whereas the ... (SKYSHINE II and MCNP) predict dose rates under the regulatory (or ...
for the TN-68 Spent Fuel Dry Storage Cask, Table of Contents - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0503/ML050310259.pdf?
10.2-2 Skyshine Dose Rates as a Function of Distance for a Single TN-68 Cask .... rates including skyshine in the vicinity of a generic ISFSI layout containing ...
Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2, Proposed License Amendments ... - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0718/ML071870449.pdf?
Club WSW Sector from SSES Unit 1 and Unit-2 Turbine Building skyshine is. 0.403 mrem per year. This is inconsistent with Section 8.6 of the PUSAR, which ...
Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 - Extended Power Uprate ... - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1326/ML13260A076.pdf?
Sep 13, 2013 - to nearest boundary) needed to calculate the skyshine contribution to the most ... does not maintain an explicit N-16 skyshine dose calculation.
02/06/06 - Ltr A Patko, NAC International, Inc. - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0603/ML060370566.pdf?
Feb 6, 2006 - 71160-5061, "NewGen PWR Skyshine Analysis," Revision 1, ... "A Comparison of Skyshine Computational Methods," Hertel, Nolan E. et al, not.
DR-506, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 2.0." - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0712/ML071210135.pdf?
BWR Skyshine. 2. Onsite Radwaste Storage Facilities. 4.5. TOTAL DOSE REQUIREMENTS. 1. Total Effective Dose Equivalent Limits of 10CFR20. 2. Total Dose ...
E-Mail from Lawrence Rossbach regarding Health Physics ... - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0124/ML012490145.pdf?
Apr 5, 2001 - The Skyshine offsite external dose components (related to the 40 CFR 190 ... identify the dose receptor for the skyshine component -- is it a ...
RE: Response to Request for Additional Information Letter No ... - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0826/ML082682156.pdf?
Sep 24, 2008 - The proposed revision of Table 12.2-203 still does not identify turbine building skyshine as a contributing source of radiation for Unit 3 since the ...
Submittal of NAC Proprietary Information Calculation ... - NRC
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0808/ML080870143.pdf?
Mar 14, 2008 - 71160-5061, Revision 1, NEWGEN PWR Skyshine Analysis. * 71160-5062, Revision 1, NEWGEN BWR Skyshine Analysis. Also enclosed is a ...
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)The fact that skyshine exists does not mean that it's relevant to the discussion.
You could also look up the fact that some scientists figured out how to refract gamma rays a couple years ago (with promissing applications)... but you couldn't use it to refute Pam's claim that gamma rays travel in straight lines since it doesn't apply.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Than issuing a claim of safety based on no consideration of the potential for fire, smoke and widespread fallout?
This entire line of discussion promoted by the pronuclear damage-minimizers is bogus when considering the potential effects to the 42+ million people living in that region.
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Bananas' errors were definitive statements of physical principles that in most cases were simply wrong independent of scenario - absent an incredibly unlikely occurrence like someone hanging a giant gamma reflecting grazing mirror 15,000 feet over Fukushima.
The scenario that you insist RC account for requires that unlikely scenario. The premise of your question presupposes that the following statement is accurate.
Since fire and smoke are the anticipated dispersal mechanisms for contaminated particulate pollution
They most certainly are not. They may be imagined by the wildest anti-nuke still grasping at SOME way for a major death toll to still occur... but that doesn't make them anticipated or even rational.
Pam is no more required to imagine incredibly rare exceptions to the plain science (nor RC to accept the "fission restarting at any moment now" scenarios) than I was required to accept the nonsensical claims in March of 2011 that Fukushima was still critical because spontaneous fission counts.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)
I was responding to RC's statement that radiation goes in straight lines.
And I probably wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't seen a similar error a few hours earlier on a different message board.
They were discussing radiation shielding for a trip to Mars.
Some thought that, since radiation goes in straight lines, all you need is a narrow column of water between the crew and the sun.
But that's wrong, because radiation doesn't go in straight lines.
Here are some excerpts from that conversation:
Topic: Mars Direct - Problems and Solutions
[hr]
QG: A long column of water can be used as a solar radiation shield.
[hr]
KZ: Someone, I think it might have been Robot Beat, produced some evidence here that radiation from solar flares does not travel just in a straight line from the sun, so you might need shielding in all directions.
[hr]
QG: For the purposes of shielding solar radiation I can't imagine why you'd need more than a column. While the flux might not come from the direction of the Sun, it will come from just the one direction at a time. So you "just" need to be able to point it.
[hr]
RB: That's a misconception. It comes from very widely varying angles. The average velocity of a particle over one gyration is in the same direction, but because the radius of gyration is large, they end up coming at you from all sorts of different angles (possibly even from behind you, though not as common).
[hr]
QG: Not at the same time....
[hr]
RB: Yes, at the same time. The solar particles are gyrating all over the place at large angles.
[hr]
GF: From all directions with similar intensity or would there be a direction where the bulk of the particles come from?
[hr]
RB: Not /exactly/ similar intensity, but generally pretty isotropic, other than I believe downwind which is reduced (but not eliminated).
[hr]
MA: H+ solar wind has a radius of gyration of between 10km and 100km
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)You treated nuclear radiation as if it behaved in the same way as light. It simply doesn't. Even where there is minor applicability (as with skyshine), it's so tiny compared to the reflection of light from other objects that it's simply off-base to make the comparison (many orders of magnitude difference)
I probably wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't seen a similar error a few hours earlier on a different message board.
As with your citation of a skyshine study without understanding what they were talking about, this is another example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You're again assuming that all radiation is essentially the same. It isn't.
Solar storm radiation is impacted by magnetic fields in ways that nuclear decay radiation isn't (and even when it travels in straight lines it can come from multiple sources in a CME).
PamW
(1,825 posts)bananas,
The problem people are considering in the Mars transit problem is dealing with a different form of radiation.
The members of the forum that you are monitoring are concerned about the "solar wind" which are charged particles coming from the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
In the absence of any forces on the particles; the charged particles would travel in straight lines as per Newton's Laws of Motion.
But there's more to consider. The Sun has a MASSIVE and CURVED magnetic field. The charged particles are influenced by the magnetic field of the Sun.
The charged particles essentially want to "orbit" the CURVED field lines; the size of the orbit specified by the "radius of gyration" ( See comment by RB above ), also called the gyroradius, Larmor radius, or the "cyclotron radius":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroradius
The gyroradius (also known as radius of gyration, Larmor radius or cyclotron radius) is the radius of the circular motion of a charged particle in the presence of a uniform magnetic field.
Photons are NOT influence by magnetic fields.
So basically it is all the SAME ERROR. Bananas doesn't understand the Physics; so he ends up INAPPROPRIATELY attributing characteristics of visible light waves to gamma rays which have a wavelength orders of magnitude smaller. He also ends up INAPPROPRIATELY attributing the characteristics of charged particles moving in the Sun's magnetic field to photons which are UNAFFECTED by magnetic fields.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)bananas states
Radioactive isotopes don't go in a straight line, and they release radiation everywhere they go.
The single slit and double slit experiments are examples of diffraction.
FAULTY PHYSICS on display here!
We are discussing nuclear radiation; which is high energy radiation; i.e. gamma radiation and that DOES go in straight lines.
Bananas didn't get much out of physics class; because bananas evidently forgot the conditions under which you get diffraction. You need the slit width to be comparable to the size of the wavelength of the radiation. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
While diffraction occurs whenever propagating waves encounter such changes, its effects are generally most pronounced for waves whose wavelength is roughly similar to the dimensions of the diffracting objects. If the obstructing object provides multiple, closely spaced openings, a complex pattern of varying intensity can result.
With gamma rays, one is talking about electromagnetic waves that have wavelengths less than the diameter of an atom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10 exahertz (or >1019 Hz), and therefore have energies above 100 keV and wavelengths less than 10 picometers (less than the diameter of an atom).
Therefore, you can't make diffraction slits for gamma rays from nuclear radiation; atoms are just TOO BIG.
The "stick in the water" example of refraction is also inapt for gamma rays. Refraction results from electromagnetic radiation travelling at different speeds in different media; the water vs the air in the water and stick example. The "index of refraction" in Snell's Law is the ratio of the the speed light in a vacuum to the speed of light in the medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law
Photons ALWAYS travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. So how does light travel at different speeds in different media? It's because it is absorbed and re-radiated. If you travel on the highway always at 65 mph; but you take stops to eat and visit the restroom, then your effective speed isn't 65 mph even though the car only goes 65 mph when it's on the road.
The mean-free path of gamma rays is so long in normal materials that we don't get this absorption / re-radiation effect.
Bananas took his limited Physics understanding for the behavior of light and INAPPROPRIATELY applied it to gamma rays.
Everything bananas said in the previous post is PURE HOGWASH!!
Nuclear radiation, i.e. gamma rays DOES travel in straight lines as was originally stated.
I have to say AMEN to the last sentence in RC's post above.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
bananas
(27,509 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Gamma SkyShine Calculations for Shielded Sources
by Michael S. Bassett
<snip>
1.1 The Skyshine Problem
Gamma-ray doses outside of areas containing nuclear materials can generally
be broken into two components. The first component is the direct dose
contribution arising from gamma photons that travel directly from the source to
the detector location. The direct component can usually be evaluated easily using
ray analysis techniques (Ch84). The second dose component, which is generally
more difficult to calculate, is due to indirectly scattered radiation and includes
skyshine radiation, radiation streaming through ducts, and radiation reflected from
surfaces (albedo radiation) (Ch84). Skyshine dose refers to the dose caused by the
reflection of photons in the air back to a ground target. In this study, approximate
methods for calculating the indirect skyshine gamma dose are considered.
Outside of nuclear facilities, the skyshine dose can become an important
component of the total offsite dose rate (Pe84, An87) and has become an important
concern in the radiological assessment of these facilities. Skyshine dose
calculations are required for accident analysis calculations at PWR and BWR
nuclear power plants (Pe84, An87). In BWR power plants the movement of
nitrogen-16 from the reactor to the turbine room also requires an estimate of the
skyshine dose to be made during normal operations (An87). The storage of nuclear
waste both above ground, in buildings, and below ground will likewise require an
analysis of the skyshine dose during the design of the disposal facility.
Evaluation of the skyshine dose is, in general, more complicated than the
ray-analysis techniques used for analyzing the direct dose (Fa87). The techniques
used to evaluate the skyshine dose can range from engineering approximations
(Pe84) to complete numerical solutions of the multigroup transport equation.
1.2 Previous Skyshine Investigations
<snip>
(edit to add the by-line, some boldface, and underline "required" several times)
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)You need to actually understand these things before including them in arguments. Actually reading some of those reports would be a start. Try this one - http://www.mne.ksu.edu/~jks/papers/NSEhyb.pdf
The graph on page 298 should be instructive.
Arnie's skyshine nonsense was just barely reasonable for people working at the plant if the pool collapsed (or couldn't hold water). Much farther away, skyshine (already a minor factor) really wouldn't be an issue.
It certainly would be irrelevant as far away as Tokyo. The first 10,000 feet or so of reflection would still be blocked by the curvature of the earth and the angle on the (already miniscule) remaining reflection above that altitude leaves an incredibly small proportion of the original source. It's effectively zero.
PamW
(1,825 posts)OH PULEEEZZ
Not more STUPIDITY from Arnie Gunderson.
IDIOT Gunderson was disproved when he said the Unit 3 explosion was nuclear. IDIOT Gunderson told the civic leaders of a town near San Onofre that the probability of an accident in 6 months was 360%. IDIOT Gunderson multiplied a 60% per month probability by 6 months to get a probability greater than 100%. IDIOT Gunderson doesn't know how to add probabilities, as they teach in high school.
WRONG bananas; gamma rays don't reflect nor refract. We are barely able to get X-rays to reflect with glancing angles of attack; so they don't change much in angle.
Evidently you don't understand that reflection is a "collective effect" of many atoms acting in concert.
The problem is that you evidently don't understand that since the wavelength of gamma rays is so small, less than the diameter of an atom; you CAN NOT have a collective effect of many atoms interacting with the gamma because the gamma is so small in wavelength it can only interact with a single atom, if it does that.
The wavelength of visible light is large enough so that you can have collective effects. But you are applying physics appropriate to visible light to gamma rays for which those laws DON'T APPLY. Get some education!!!
Take your 4th grade science understanding and at least come up to junior high school level before posting more CRAP science here.
A 4th grade understanding of science, and he argues with a Physicist with a PhD. Typical anti-nuke. Go figure.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)... the error was made years ago. I'm not aware of him making any similar claim of Tokyo being endangered by skyshine even in a worst-case scenario now.
He was talking about the potential gamma dose at the plant of skyshine resulting from a dry and uncovered SFP.
I remember looking at it at the time and concluding that with the wrong conditions and using the least favorable calculations for skyshine (hardly a definitive science) - it was at least plausible that the dose rate would make it hard to work around the plant. Given the magnitude of his other errors at the time, I gave him a pass - though I often wondered why he didn't assume therefore that the tiny gamma dose rates at the plant were thus proof that the pool was not dry.
But why should I expect his rantings to even be internally consistent? 
bananas
(27,509 posts)First, it wasn't by Arnie Gunderson.
Second, Arnie is an actual expert with an excellent track record.
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)Few people would have ever even heard of "skyshine" in a nuclear context unless he years ago imagined it years as a potential new thing to worry about at Fukushima.
Second... Arnie is most definitely not an expert on the topic, and whatever expertise he may have held decades ago has long since given way to his need to get a paycheck from the people who can't survive with actual expertise. His manifold errors (that would have been crystal clear to any actual expert) make clear that he has either forgotten most of what he once knew... or dishonestly ignores it. Charitably, I'll lean toward the former.
bananas
(27,509 posts)I added the byline and some boldface and underlined the word "required" several times to make it easier for everyone to see that you and PamW are 100% WRONG!!!
And Arnie is still an expert.
Arnie was right about San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Fukushima.
And that's why the nuclear industry still hates him.
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)I know that the souce you linked to was written well before Fukushima (as was mine)... but there's zero chance that you would have even thought to google it if it hadn't been for Arnie trying to con people into thinking that Fukushima would be impossible for workers to deal with because skyshine from the SFPs would make the entire site deadly.
And Arnie is still an expert.
In his own imagination of course.
Arnie was right about San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Fukushima.
Only about things that were never contested. He's been dead wrong with just about everything else.
I added the byline and some boldface and underlined the word "required" several times
Lol... and you imagine that this makes it relevant to the conversation? It's "required" for dose estimates for specific exposures quite close to the source. Did you even read the paper I pointed you to? Just that single graph I referenced should make it crystal clear. Even right at a hypothetically damaged plant, the skyshine dosage is a small proportion of the total exposure... and it falls off by several orders of magnitude just over the first few hundred meters... yet you want to pitch that it's relevant to a conversation of exposure over a hundred miles away? (And again... try to consider where most skyshine occurs. The curve of the earth alone would block pretty much all of it).
PamW
(1,825 posts)FBaggins,
As I recall reading, about 70% of scientist in general, and 98% of the Physicists / Engineers support nuclear power.
The reason so many Physicists / Engineers support nuclear power is that in order to oppose nuclear power, one has to believe all the CRAP that that anti-nukes like Arnie Gundersen and the other anti-nukes like to promulgate.
Physicists / Engineers know this stuff is CRAP They don't fall for the ANTI-NUKE PROPAGANDA; they are too smart for that.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)so you can stop putting words in my fingers, so to speak. It's a matter of scale. Instead of apples and oranges, maybe I should have said apples and watermelons.
As far as it not threatening Tokyo, you may want to let Japanese officials know that.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/18/fukushima-nuclear-power-workers-spent-fuel-rod-removal
"Some experts have warned that a collision involving the fuel assemblies, a sudden loss of coolant water or another big earthquake could cause a chain reaction and the release of huge quantities of radiation into the atmosphere***."
"After the explosion, one big challenge was to deal with the spent fuel pool because if the water evaporated it would cause a radioactive cloud stretching all the way to Tokyo, which would have to be evacuated," Yuichi Okamura, deputy manager of the water treatment department at Fukushima Daiichi, told the Guardian on Monday."
"The head of Japan's nuclear safety agency, Shunichi Tanaka, recently warned that removing the fuel involved huge risks, particularly if any attempt was made to force fuel assemblies that have become impeded by debris. "The process involves a very large risk potential," he said. "In a sense, it is more risky than the radioactive water crisis.""
***Note: the last time I checked, stuff that goes up into the atmosphere has a way of traveling over mountains and can even travel quite a long distance before it comes back down to earth.
And then there is this:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/15/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-cleanup
"Yet as the scale of the challenge has become clearer with every new accident and radiation leak, the men working inside the plant are suffering from plummeting morale, health problems and anxiety about the future, according to insiders interviewed by the Guardian.
Even now, at the start of a decommissioning operation that is expected to last 40 years, the plant faces a shortage of workers qualified to manage the dangerous work that lies ahead.
"Commenting on the leak, the head of Japan's nuclear regulator, Shunichi Tanaka, told reporters: "Mistakes are often linked to morale. People usually don't make silly, careless mistakes when they're motivated and working in a positive environment. The lack of it, I think, may be related to the recent problems.""
