PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th Mar 2011, 15:53   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 61
Posts: 211
A chest x-ray is quite low about 0.1mSv equivalent to about 10 days worth of background radiation exposure.
0.1 mSv = 100 microSV so about 10 chest x-rays I reckon.

I'm happy to be corrected though.

Good link for medical procedure exposures below
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/pdf/sfty_xray.pdf

Last edited by handsfree; 14th Mar 2011 at 16:04.
handsfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 15:53   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,677
CR2,

Google ?

mixture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:02   #23 (permalink)
CR2

Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 48
Posts: 2,099
mixture, fair enough.

Just found something from our Nuclear wallahs (eskom.co.za).

200 for a chest x-ray

15 to fly Jo'burg-Cape Town

Living in Cape Town I get 2000/year background radiation

Jo'burg wallahs get 3100/year (idem)

Jo'burg sucks at the best of times anyway
CR2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:26   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 44
handsfree, its not jsut the Guardian thats "scaremongering"

I was watching the BBC the other day, when they had somebody with credentials talking - his comment was that the situation was under control.

At the same time somebody else says "this is the next chernobyl"
Guess who's comment was published on the website .

The panic about it develops from people not having a clue about what happens in a nuclear power station, because the media are so ignorant when it comes to stories like this.

It is just different people looking to "headline grab" by hyping stories up...
Bolli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:34   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 81
There is a basic issue behind this and that is "What is a dangerous level of radiation ?" There seems to be an assumption by many that any thing above zero could be dangerous ie cause cancers .
HuntandFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:39   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 48
Posts: 251
I've always thought nuclear electricity was cheaper and cleaner than other kinds of productions.
Facts make me wonder... it seems to be true until something goes wrong.

Some questions I have in mind :
- What would be the temperature of the core IF it begins melting ?(I really, really hope it won't)
- What is the melting temperature of the stainless steel container ? I read pressure is already twice what it should be in #2 reactor at Fukushima-Daïshi, is this a factor in regard of the container's strength ?
- Is this temperature the same once the sea water has corroded everything ?
- How does concrete react to high temperatures ? I know plaster becomes very fragile, is it the same for concrete ? If yes, how will it react to future earthquakes when/if overheated ?
- How long would the core take to cool down ?
- What will be the SOP to clean the place afterwards ? Is there a SOP ?

Thanks to anyone for answers.

I saw on TV the rescue teams France sent to Japan. They took nuclear protections in their luggage... hope this was "just in case".

I hope optimists are right and pessimists are wrong.
BrATCO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:43   #27 (permalink)
RJM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 295
It would have been useful for the hysterically-inclined media (in Australia anyway) to have read this piece before running around like Chicken Little about the Japanese nuclear power stations.

Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation BraveNewClimate
RJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:44   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 559
Quote:
that the reactors end up as a puddle of cold metal at the bottom of their containment vessels.
Fine, why don't you volunteer to go and clean it up then? Cold metal my ar5e.

Those conscripts in Ukraine received a lifetime's dose in just a few minutes, trying to take pot shots with their rifles at the dragon's foot or whatever they called it in an effort to chip bits off it for analysis.
dead_pan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:54   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 62
Posts: 617
Nice find RJM. Still readng it but good stuff.
11Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 16:57   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 559
Further to my post earlier today re INES rating for this incident:

Quote:
France's ASN nuclear safety authority has classed the nuclear accident at Fukushima's Daiichi plan as level 5 or 6 on the international scale of 1 to 7, on a par with the 1979 U.S. Three Mile Island meltdown, one higher than that given by Japan's nuclear safety agency.

"Level four is a serious level," ASN President Andre-Claude Lacoste told a news conference, but added: "We feel that we are at least at level five or even at level 6."
dead_pan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:07   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
Hmmm, just wondering, anybody know how long it takes fuel rods to cool down to a sensible temperature once the reaction has been shut down?
tony draper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:11   #32 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 72
Posts: 1,754
Japan has asked the USA for help in solving the cooling problem.

Red Adair, where are you now?
G-CPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:16   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 62
Posts: 617
Quote:
Red Adair, where are you now?
Ya know, I thought of him the other day. I wonder if there is a Red Adair for the Nuclear Industry.
11Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:17   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 559
Mr D - they won't cool on their own accord, if thats what you're wondering. They'll melt before that.
dead_pan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:20   #35 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
Red Adair, where are you now?
Ginger Rogers would know.
forget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:27   #36 (permalink)

Flashes from the Archives of Oblivion
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: 03 ACE
Age: 66
Posts: 2
forget, you forgot !!

That was Fred Adair !!!
El Grifo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:33   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 73
Posts: 723
handsfree, its not just the Guardian thats "scaremongering"

No, but was the Guardian who referred on Saturday March 12th, page 5, reporting by Suzanne Goldenberg who is their US Environment Correspondent that "by the time the great wave roared past those islands" - Guam etc - and on the same page, further down, "How big were the waves ? ...the wave height dropped to 40 cms in Guam and the nearby Marianas....."

Don't know whether a 40cms high wave can roar (unless you are editor of the Guardian, that is...)

Personally I trust none of them: BBC, SKY, papers.... you name it.
OFSO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:44   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 559
I know, PPRuNe's Jet Blast is probably the only source of information on the 'net which can be trusted
dead_pan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 17:59   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,477
All the money being wasted on wind farms / solar panels /carbon offset taxes could go on developing Thorium fuelled reactors. So safe one could have local community nuclear power stations. Thorium reactors run at normal atmospheric pressure and fail safe and have a radioactive waste level barely 1% of the present devices.

Thorium was never used previously because it does not have the byproduct of nuclear bomb material.

Shouldn't be a problem nowadays!
aviate1138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2011, 18:44   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Those pinkos at the Telegraph, Mail and Sun are also getting on board with the scaremongering.

This has certainly, and rightly, dealt a blow to confidence in nuclear energy's safety. Even given the "once in a lifetime" severity of this event, we seem to be exhausting all the safety mechanisms at our disposal. But the reporting is completely off the wall.

Below is an interesting link I was forwarded. You can probably ignore the JetBlast-esq comments that follow it and things have moved on a bit since it was written (importantly questions about whether Fukushima has a "core catcher"). But it certainly provides a more optimistic take on events unfolding:

https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2...lear-reactors/
Sunray Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 22:37.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1