Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)
22. Further evidence is found on page 29
Sat May 26, 2012, 08:26 PM
May 2012

They give a hypothetical example of an INES 7.

The total release of radioactive material was about 14 million TBq, which included 1.8 million TBq of 131I, 85 000 TBq of 137Cs and other caesium radioisotopes, 10 000 TBq of 90Sr and a number of other significant isotopes.

Criteria - 2.2. Activity released
Explanation- The factors for the radiological equivalence of 90Sr and 137Cs from Table 2 are 20 and 40 respectively, so the total release was radiologically equivalent to 5.4 million TBq 131I. This is rated at the highest level on the scale, Level 7 “equivalent to more than several tens of thousands of TBq 131I”. Although other isotopes would have been present, there is no need to include them in the calculation, as the isotopes listed are already equivalent to a Level 7 release.

Criteria 2.3 Doses to individuals
Explanation - Not necessary to consider, as event is already rated at Level 7.

Rating for impact on people and the environment - Level 7.


The conclusion here is clear. Once you get to a Level 7, numbers above that are irrelevant... because 7 is the top of the scale.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Current Fukishima headlines #2: [View all] dixiegrrrrl May 2012 OP
There's no contradiction. kristopher May 2012 #1
WRONG AS ALWAYS!! PamW May 2012 #5
Wrong way Pam strikes again... kristopher May 2012 #8
thank you, Kristopher. dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #6
dupe: delete dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #7
Flat wrong. FBaggins May 2012 #10
Chernobyl, does, in fact represent the present peak of the conceptual pyramid kristopher May 2012 #11
I don't see why the "pyramid" would ever be "rebuilt" caraher May 2012 #13
These go to eleven OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #14
It is refreshing to have a well reasoned position presented kristopher May 2012 #15
Amen to that last part caraher May 2012 #27
Nope. An active imagination doesn't mean you have a clue. FBaggins May 2012 #21
Further evidence is found on page 29 FBaggins May 2012 #22
You're a hoot, Baggins. kristopher May 2012 #23
Were you going to adress any of the evidence AT ALL? FBaggins May 2012 #24
Major problems’ with radiation testing for children dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #2
TEPCO's post-mortem shows No. 2 reactor main source of radiation dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #3
Yesterday the WHO said radiation levels were low in Japan WTF? Frosty1 May 2012 #4
Probably a lot of the radiation has gone due to half-life decay NickB79 May 2012 #9
Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake… OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #12
What do you think about that report? Reliable? dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #16
Yeah… I'm going to trust the UN OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #17
Accepting this statement by the WHO... kristopher May 2012 #18
I don't think the WHO is colluding with the nuclear power industry OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #19
It isn't a matter of collusion. kristopher May 2012 #20
Your implication is that the WHO cannot be trusted OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #25
I didn't imply anything. kristopher May 2012 #26
Garwin called them "deliberately misleading" bananas May 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Current Fukishima headlin...»Reply #22