Radiation levels at Fukushima Plant continue to decline.

[FBaggins]

Nuclear Energy Institute Report on Japan's Nuclear Reactors, March 19, 2011 (2 PM EST)

Radiation doses at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant continue to decrease. Radiation dose rates at the site boundary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant ranged from 1 millirem to 3 millirem per hour on March 18. Eighteen locations were monitored in a 30-kilometer to 60-kilometer radius of the plant. The highest radiation dose rate at any of those locations was 14 millirem per hour.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/22733-nuclear-energy-institute-report-on-japans-nuclear-reactors-march-19-2011-2-pm-est.html


For reference, at 3 millirem it would take you about 3,000 hours to get to the annual occupational dose limit for US nuclear workers. A full time 40-hr/wk job adds up to 2,080 hours in a year.

Assuming the numbers aren't entirely invented, this means that there's not way that fuel rods are uncovered in one of those pools. It also means that the cores have cooled enough that they aren't releasing steam any longer (or very infrequently). It also means that there is no containment breach in the unit with the busted torus. Another report I've seen says that they haven't detected high levels of zirconium... which confirms that there aren't burning fuel rods in one of those pools.

All just in time for the winds to start blowing inshore. Hold it together guys!

Still plenty of things that can go wrong, but we may be getting past the danger zone here.

[JDPriestly]

1. We are scheduled for rain in S. California.

We shall see whether the world beyond Japan including sea life is beyond the danger zone.

[FBaggins]

2. So far we haven't seen anything outside of about a ten-mile circle that is IN

the danger zone.

Multiple thousands of miles to California really isn't an issue.

[JDPriestly]

11. Probably not, but then we have been lied to so often.

And last I heard, the Japanese will be releasing still more radioactive gas into the air.

I am really not worried -- but as I said, we shall see.

[TheMadMonk]

7. Can I interest you in a sky proof hat Chicken Little?

In truth there is quite probably more highly radioactive material in a medical or industrial imaging device than has been released into the environment at large so far at Fukushima.

[Poll_Blind]

3. !

:thumbsup:

PB

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Get sick for a week, and look at what one can miss

I glanced at the Huffington Post headlines a few days ago and it said there was a Nuclear Catastrophe and over 5000 dead. Then a little later I heard on TV that there had also been a major earthquake and tsunami.

Maybe I'll crawl back into bed for another month or two ...

--d!

[FBaggins]

5. Yes... It's all your fault.

Just like watching you favorite team causes them to lose.

If we all chip in will you go to a remote carribean island for a month's vacation?

[ebayfool]

6. Annual occupational limits are 5r - unless reactor standards are ...

different than other occupational standards (I don't think they are). That would be @ 1666 hrs to attain, if I'm remembering this correctly. At the 18mr mark, @ 277 hrs.

The workers are much closer than the 30 to 60 kilometers that these measurement were taken at though - it's still dangerous for them. Their courage is simply amazing, & humbling to witness. I hope that this continues to improve, & they are able to limit the exposures these people are working in - the effects are cumulative & more striking when they are absorbed in a small time frame.

[FBaggins]

12. You're correct on the first point, but off on the second.

I'm not sure where I was remembering the occupational dose limits from. I remember that Japan just doubled there to make sure that critical workers weren't pulled off the site, maybe I just doubled it. But that wouldn't change the fact that I said it was the U.S. limit.

OTOH, these aren't the equivelent doses that the workers are exposed to since their wearing protective gear (and we took the high end of the current readings, not the average). They could probably work 24/7 for the whole year at those levels without hitting their limit if you're only counting what would get through their gear.

What you missed was that this was the measurement on site... not 30-60 km away.

Yes, it's still dangerous. If nothing else they'll still need to release steam. On a less and less frequent basis, but it will continue to happen until they not only have pumps, but a way to cool and recirculate the water. But they'll know in advance when those releases will be and can just get out of the way. Looks like they're close to setting up pool spraying that doesn't need to be attended, which should help.

[ebayfool]

13. Inverse square law says otherwise -

"Radiation dose rates at the site boundary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant ranged from 1 millirem to 3 millirem per hour on March 18. Eighteen locations were monitored in a 30-kilometer to 60-kilometer radius of the plant. The highest radiation dose rate at any of those locations was 14 millirem per hour."

If the outer perimeter (site boundary) of the plant was reading as high as 14mr, inverse square law would require that the readings on site would be exponentially higher ... not lower. I'm not so satisfied that the readings are being reported correctly, or else the reporters aren't putting the numbers in the right place (easy enough to screw up - it would be difficult for most laymen, ie reporters, to comprehend). This is an example of why I'm skeptical of most of the information coming out of there. Making progress, yes - but out of the weeds remains to be seen.

[FBaggins]

14. That's a common error. You've confused "radiation" with "radioactive material"

Radiation decreases (by the inverse square law) with the distance from the source emitting the radiation. Radioactive elements land wherever they land (and then they're releasing radiation). You can see much higher doses in one area than another even though it's farther away. It all depends on wind patterns, weather, and the type of material.

A high percentage of the activity that they have detected at the plant during the last week was necessarily from radioactive steam. This has an incredibly short half-life, which is why it's almost entirely gone in a very short period of time. Other elements have much longer half-lives, but also were carried farther from the plant (in some cases all the way across the ocean).

If we assume that one of the fires a few days ago was from burning fuel (not at all certain at this point), there would be some elements that would have traveled downwind that are pretty nasty stuff. You might not find much of it at the plant, but it wouldn't be unexpected for a high percentage of it to land within a comparatively small area of land (say ten miles away). You could easily see higher doses in that area (and almost nothing a mile down the road).

[ebayfool]

15. That's alotta assumptions ...

The story linked doesn't go into whether the readings were sourced from the plant or from elements released from the plant, so I don't make assumptions from that. My post is strictly based on their statement of the readings & their locations. I don't see how making assumptions or guesses as to how they got there as being probative or factual.

I also don't try to force a kid's foot into a shoe to try to make it fit. If it don't fit, it don't fit - whether you manage to shoehorn it on or not. Your mileage may vary, however. Feel free to squeeze it on!

[FBaggins]

16. There aren't really many assumptions in that post.

That's just how it works. You can see highly variable levels of radiation.

If you re-read the article you'll see that that's exactly what is being reported. Take a look at one of the maps displaying measured dose levels all around the countryside and you'll see 100:1 variations in some cases.

The story linked doesn't go into whether the readings were sourced from the plant or from elements released from the plant,

It doesn't matter. When you read activity levels, that's always radiation. For the reson to cited before, the source is certainly pretty close by. That piece says that the levels at the site were 1-3 millirem/hr and that readings 30-60 km away were variable with the highest being 14 millirem/hr. I don't see it in this article, but some of them were much lower.

No "forcing" anything. It IS what happened - unless the numbers are entirely fabricated.

[girl gone mad]

8. The Nuclear Energy Institute is a lobbying group for the nuclear power industry.

Not saying this information isn't accurate, but I will wait for verification from independent sources.

A story from the Washington Post about the NEI's efforts to minimize the disaster:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-nuclear-advocates-try-to-limit-political-impact-of-japan-reactor-crisis/2011/03/17/AB6sr0k_story.html

[neverforget]

9. Did they get the reactors fixed? Are the spent fuel ponds covered?

I call BS.

[stockholmer]

10. the source of this is really dodgy, the Nuclear Energy Institute is a pro-nuke shill group

I have not seen anything to merit such a rosy outlook, sorry but this Fukushima Dai-ichi nightmare is going to end in many more tears than smiles.


Watch this autrocious statement from the Hannity show on shite Fox News (about 1 minute 20 seconds in ) by Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute (they work with the NEI all the time) to get a feel for the spin these paid shills spew.

"HANNITY: How realistic is this threat?

LEHR: Sean, it's not at all realistic. I can tell you with the utmost confidence there will not be a health impact from anything that's going on at the Fukushima power plant."

Lehr also makes the criminally absurd claim that almost no deaths from radiation occurred from Chernobyl, when a large amount of evidence http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Book-Concludes-Cherno-by-Karl-Grossman-100902-941.html shows that as many as 1 million did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4ZwhP0upQg