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

Environment & Energy

In reply to the discussion: TEPCO Rose [View all]

PamW

(1,825 posts)
15. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! Everything you said was 100% WRONG!!!
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:45 PM
Feb 2013

Octafish,

100% WRONG on all counts.

Your last paragraph is all wrong. When you calculate DOSE, you take into account any effects due to shielding. There are actually two "doses"; dose and dose effective. The dose is the amount of energy per unit mass actually deposited in tissue and is measured in "Grays" ( old unit was "rads" ). Because dose is the amount actually deposited, the calculation of dose has to account for any shielding. Then there is "dose effective". Dose effective is just like dose, with the exception that one takes into account the actual biological damage done; and that alpha particles cause more damage per unit energy deposited than gammas or electrons, i.e. beta particles. Dose effective is in units called "Sieverts" ( old unit was "rems" ). Because all the points you raise about shielding and the greater damage due to alpha radiation is taken into account when dose is calculated in Sieverts; there is nothing misleading at all in the University of Michigan table. Contrary to your ill-founded and ill-considered statements above; the issues you raise are actually taken into account when dose effective in Sieverts is calculated.

Evidently you are NOT familiar with the design of the General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and its containment system. You are in ERROR in saying that the containment exploded. The building you see exploding is NOT the reactor containment building. The GE BWR Mark I containment has a "light-bulb" shaped building INSIDE the boxy building, and that light-bulb shaped building is the containment.

In the explosion, hydrogen was vented into the outer building, and mixed with air in this outer building. That's where the explosion took place; inside the boxy outer building. but OUTSIDE of the containment. The containment building was not blown up in the explosion. Additionally, any plutonium would be inside the reactor pressure vessel which is inside the containment. Therefore, there were TWO VERY STRONG boundaries between the plutonium in the core and that explosion.

The figures cited by the University of California - Berkeley are correct. The scientific consensus of the Universities and National Labs that were tasked to evaluate the consequences agree that 2 grams is the proper figure for the amount of plutonium released.

Your first point is also 100% in ERROR Almost ALL of the plutonium in the environment is due to atmospheric nuclear tests carried on during the years 1945 to 1962. In 1962, the nations of the world signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty which OUTLAWED atmospheric nuclear tests. The tests that you've heard about during the last 50 years are carried out underground. In those tests, the bomb melts the rock surrounding the explosion, and the plutonium and radioactive fission products are entrained or dissolved in the molten rock. The molten rock then cools, and traps the plutonium and radioactive fission products inside the solid rock.

PamW

Recommendations

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

TEPCO Rose [View all] Octafish Feb 2013 OP
What "murder of 8 billion people" are you talking about? wtmusic Feb 2013 #1
I imagine that refers to plutonium exposure. Octafish Feb 2013 #2
Sounds like the seabirds are healthy. wtmusic Feb 2013 #3
According to your way of thinking, wtmusic, plutonium must be good for you. Octafish Feb 2013 #4
Is that what passes for logic these days? FBaggins Feb 2013 #8
Fantastic catch! Octafish Feb 2013 #11
What about him/her? FBaggins Feb 2013 #12
Lady Barbara Judge is the subject of the post. Do you have anything to add about her? Octafish Feb 2013 #13
She's the subject of the thread... not the post. FBaggins Feb 2013 #18
Thanks. Very astute observation, FBaggins. Octafish Feb 2013 #29
This is where EDUCATION is needed.. PamW Feb 2013 #34
I like education Thanks Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #35
Spontaneous fission. PamW Feb 2013 #36
Turbine steam was in direct contact with the MOX fuel? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #37
Actually... PamW Feb 2013 #40
Tell us what you think of this, Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #41
Sure.... PamW Feb 2013 #43
Plutonium Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #44
I've looked... PamW Feb 2013 #46
Denying science again, aren't you, Pam? Yep. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #49
I don't doubt the Lithuaninan scientists.. PamW Feb 2013 #51
Bravo. wtmusic Feb 2013 #38
Pam sure made this clear RobertEarl Feb 2013 #39
You need to cool a reactor.. PamW Feb 2013 #42
Wow, Pam. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #45
Again... PamW Feb 2013 #47
Another profound statement RobertEarl Feb 2013 #50
I'm glad you AGREE!! PamW Feb 2013 #48
She's not suggesting they are thinking about re-starting parts of the Dai-ichi plant is she? AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #5
Her hiring may be a PR move of the first stank rather than as a professional fixer-upper. Octafish Feb 2013 #6
K&R RobertEarl Feb 2013 #7
Nuclear war is crazy. Nuclear weapons are crazy. Nuclear power is crazy. Octafish Feb 2013 #9
There's tons spread around the world WITHOUT the bunkers. PamW Feb 2013 #10
That paper was published in 2002. It's a good bet there's a lot more plutonium now. Octafish Feb 2013 #14
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! Everything you said was 100% WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2013 #15
Uhhh, Pam? You do know this, right? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #16
I hope she doesn't know it... FBaggins Feb 2013 #19
Hey, ya seen #4 RobertEarl Feb 2013 #20
Another straw man? FBaggins Feb 2013 #21
Building #4 has crumbled RobertEarl Feb 2013 #23
WRONG AGAIN!!! PamW Feb 2013 #25
There are TONS of spent MOX (PLUTONIUM and URANIUM!!!) outside that core in the spent fuel pools. Octafish Feb 2013 #32
Another thread you should review FBaggins Feb 2013 #33
You're kidding, right? FBaggins Feb 2013 #26
Self-righteous anti-nukes. PamW Feb 2013 #28
You'll get a kick out of today's Dilbert FBaggins Feb 2013 #30
I'll have to send this to my colleague.. PamW Feb 2013 #31
YES - volatile materials PamW Feb 2013 #22
Thank you for straightening me out, PamW. Octafish Feb 2013 #17
But you need to be an engineer... PamW Feb 2013 #24
Scientifically - I agree with the TEPCO assessment PamW Feb 2013 #27
Lady Barbara Judge to give David J. Rose Memorial Lecture at MIT PamW Feb 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»TEPCO Rose»Reply #15