nuclear environmental discussion

Probably, probably not. But it's hard to imagine how much it has actually spread since 2011.

go watch the video I posted on like page 2. Geiger readings at unhealthy levels on the California coast. Didn't pop out of nowhere.

 

https://youtu.be/-HOgkzZc4Co

 

I'm on the coast and would be interested in some info on radiation levels at our coast , got a link to articles ?

 

I saw the vid, it was measuring in counts per minute which doesn't tell the strength of radiation. If it was a serious danger it would be detected by countries around the world and they would put pressure on Japan to focus all efforts on correcting it.

I am not denying that it was bad, I know it exposed people and wildlife unnecesarily.

 

If you see under "2016 update" it's easier to read contaminated levels at the shore than measuring it from the ocean itself as currents affect sampling and variability
http://www.beachapedia.org/Radiation_From_Fukushima

Based on various sources it is confirmed that the shores are contaminated but to a point at which can be deadly I am still reading into that.

 

I don't see where it mentions harmful levels of radiation at the North American Coast

I ask because our Federal monitoring program found only a minor increase in detectable levels that peaked last summer IIRC

 

You can get your own meter here
GQ Electronics LLC True Low Cost Instruments Solution
http://www.gqelectronicsllc.com/comersus/store/comersus_dynamicIndex.asp?idAffiliate=1001

 

We can all read 'facts' from many different sources. But unless you know anything about Nuclear decay, and understand chemistry, you wont understand anything at all. These graphs and scales being provided are measured in more exotic ways than 'feet, pounds, or even kg, or miles or ounces' they are nuclear speciffic terms. And unless you all study the terms and understand them, any graph will show something that looks insane.

My problem lies with what isotopes are being released? Because most are completely harmless, but the big 3, Strontium 90, iodine 131, and caesium 137.

Only one is bio cumulative, strontium 90. It is similar to calcium amd will accumulate in bones. The others, can be processed by the body the same way we piss and shit other contaminants out after our body rejects them.

Also, has anyone ever seen how radioactive humans are?

https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/faqradbods.html

 

Gotta say ... didn't expect this thread here. I support a variety of gov clients as an environmental engineer. Help publish the massive NEPA EIS for the Hanford site a few years back, design/execute all sorts of DOD/FUDS/DOE cleanup work in the Pacific. Not here to add anything specific to your LLW/HLW fate and transport and how that might reflect in human health toxicology, but when it comes to the perception of risk, I'm always taken back. Concerned about risk associated with radioactive waste streams to the point of anger with "the government" or "facts" or "science"? I wouldn't be till you sort out any of the other far far greater risks that may be facing you.... smoker? 500x more likely to suffer lethal health effects, drive without seatbelt? 300x more. overweight? 200x more. consume processed foods? 100x more. and so on and so on.

Not trying to minimize the need to ensure the safe disposal of radioactive waste or to minimize the need to remediate discharge from Fukushima (or any other Pacific nuclear weapons test site for that matter), I just hope people keep the risk - be it ecorisk or human health - in proper perspective.

Having said the above ... just got a new Tacoma TRD Pro AT Cement - anyone know how turn off the annoying "beep" sound when the alarm activates?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFu85lirRfw&t=3s

I'm gonna leave this here for whomever wants to watch!

 

They have to fix that , they are just minimizing it . You can't tell me the magnitude of that won't travel acrosss the ocean . Years from now we will hear about the effects of radiation from that explosion and it'll be too late !

 

That was a good video. Ive never been anti-nuke. Heck, I was in the Navy. The Navy has been operating Nuke power for decades.
I am anti-stupid. And it seems to me that the smartest people in the world miss the simplest stuff.
And then you build nuke plants on the coast of Japan and BINGO! You have a nuclear disaster.

 

Funny you mention the navy. They are primarily the reason we had invested so much money into light water reactors. They had the budget to invest into the tech so cycles like The Thorium MSR reactors fell to the trash bin. Luckily today, there are several companies actually building Gen4 Reactors in the USA despite the unwarranted hysteria towards nuclear.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40696303

Fukushima disaster: Robot finds possible melted nuclear fuel

 

We need to close all the light water reactors.

Gen 4 has the ability to solve the worlds energy concerns though..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7baTdyHv8g

 

It's the end of the world, so you need to max all of your credit cards, mod your Tacoma to the max, head out into what's left of the wilderness and drive like there is no tomorrow. Well maybe not to that extreme, but it still sounds fun.

 

Yea I wouldn't get within 3000 miles of that . I feel sorry for the peps in California with all that radiation coming across the ocean . They are minimizing the entire event .

 

We can only hope.

 

Atomic power stations out at sea may be better than inland ones

AFTER the events of March 11th 2011, when an earthquake and tsunami led to a meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant in Japan, you might be forgiven for concluding that atomic power and seawater don’t mix. Many engineers, though, do not agree.

https://www.economist.com/news/scie...ir-way-submarine-ones-may-follow-atomic-power

 

There is talk in the gen 4 community about production of modular, floating reactors. Pull the reactor into it's own port at the start of the grid, plug it in and when it burns all of its fuel, they float it away to be processed, and float in a replacement. The drastic implications of virtually zero downtime are huge.

Of course, this is a gen 4 reactor running the thorium cycle which also allows us to utilize spent fuel and burn it almost completely up, sans a few trans-uranics which are useful in the medical field.

The whole reactor under the ocean sounds fishy to me.. heh... The whole issue with modern gen3 reactors is the immense pressures the reactor must run at to be efficient, combined with the pressures of being underwater. Achievable in submarines, but the pressure vessel in submarines is too small for viable fulfillment of our energy needs. Operating a lot of these reactors will be expensive as well as they need a lot of attention to stay safe. The available pressure of the water to help supplement a loss in a pump is a great idea, but the problem in itself is the use of water to cool the reactor in the first place. Gen 4 is talking about using molten salts to regulate the temperature of the reactor, because its heat threshold is so high and it can achieve these temperatures without needing to be pressurized. If a pressure vessel ruptures, instead of water running to the lowest point, the salt will becomes frozen and solidify into what we know the salt to look like. The reactor then would shut down as the fuel, was suspended in the salt, and is now not in contact with the catalyst that creates the fission. Truly self regulating and meltdown proof.


Sorry for the long winded verse.

I love trucks, and nuclear energy