Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

World's largest nuclear plant leaks radioactive water

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:53 AM
Original message
World's largest nuclear plant leaks radioactive water
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 08:54 AM by TechBear_Seattle
Source: Reuters via Yahoo News

TOKYO (Reuters) - Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant -- the world's largest -- leaked water containing radioactive materials from a reactor after a strong quake struck northwest Japan on Monday, a company spokesman said.

No further details on damage to people or the environment were immediately available.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070716/sc_nm/quake_japan_n...



News about the quake can be found at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6900156.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Jesus. n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well they said they were earthquake and fire proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exultant Democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. what and appropriate pic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. God bless 'em, this sounds bad, I hope it doesn't effect much, any science experts?
cuz I wonder what the worst from this could be.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top '08 items & antib*sh stickers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. the amount of water that leaked
was very miniscule (1 billionth of the amount allowed under japanese law) 315 gallons of water that only contained a tiny amount of radiation. it went inot the sea of japan and will not cause any problems at that small amount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. The anti-Nukies don't care about those pesky things called facts.
315 gallons is nothing compared to the size of the Sea of Japan. I bet the radiation has diluted to the natural background level many times over already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. dupe
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:04 PM by Odin2005
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. Usually the facts come out slowly. Yesterday, they said there was NO radiation leak but just a fire
Typically the reporting goes like this over several weeks: "Absolutely no problem! Well, tiny problem -- but completely unimportant. On further investigation, small problem. Problems somewhat bigger than anticipated but nothing to worry about. Long silence."

There's no point to drawing too many conclusions from the early stories, though you do have to wonder about the intelligence of anybody that sites a reactor in an earthquak zone.

Japan shuts huge nuclear plant after quake
... The contaminated water was released into the ocean, but did not pose a threat to the environment, TEPCO said in a statement. The company had previously said there had been no radiation leaks at the plant ... http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12274-jap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. Probably not that bad.
I was hearing that they uncovered the core or some such stuff in the rumor mill around work. But 315 gallons isn't enough to do much of anything to something the size of a commercial plant, doubly so if it's suppossedly the worlds largest. Also, radioactivity levels in coolant are very minimal. The biggest source being activated oxygen, which has a half life of only 8 seconds. Fission products themselves are also present due to impurities in the fuel cell cladding, but they are very minor in scope, I would be surprised if they even released a full curie to the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. "... a nuclear reactor ... in Niigata was ruptured ..."

Japan Hit by 6.8-Magnitude Quake; Reactor Damaged (Update3)
By Mariko Yasu and Jonathan Tirone

`snip~ Tokyo Electric Power Co. said a nuclear reactor at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant in Niigata was ruptured. Two cracks opened in reactor No. 6 ~snip~

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4_...


Sounds nontrivial to me ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. They've edited the article since then.
And it gives me an even better idea of what happened.

"Tokyo Electric Power Co. said radioactive water leaked from its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant in Niigata. About 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) of water leaked from a container of used fuels, entering into a pipe that flushed it with other water into the ocean"

"The environmental effect is negligible, as the water that flushed into the ocean -- about 350 gallons "

Oh yes, so incredibly horrible! Here I'll do some math, lets say that this stuff had a fission product activity level of:
1 x 10 ^-6 uuCi/ml.
And we spilled 1.5 L. or 1500 mL. So we would have 1.5 x 10 ^-3 uuCi put into this new water source. And we'll say it's evenly dilluted just to make math easy. Well 350 gallons is 1317647 ml according to some random conversion website I went to. Just for ease, we'll drop a few liters (17) of fluid and call it 1300000 ml. or 1300 L. So we take our total curie count and we divide by the volume of liquid (we'll use liters this time), and we get 1.15 x 10 ^-6 uuCi/L (x10 ^-9 if per ml). Anyways I was going to go into thumbrules about drinking 2 liters a day for a year and tell you how much of a dose you would get. Except the thumb rule uses mCi, not uuCi which is 1/100000000 of the ammount. So I'll get a bit more concrete with it, if you had 100,000,000,000, one hundred BILLION times the ammount of stuff they probably released. Rolled it up into a ball, and then put it on a pedastel and sat three feet away from it for an entire hour without moving; you would gain one and one half entire mRem of radiation. ONE and a half MILLIREM. It takes 100 REM to even start making you sick, and that won't kill you.

You give me an actual curie count, and I can run the numbers, or you can run them yourselves, I just basically showed you all the math involved, it's not hard in the slightest. It takes a lot of this stuff before people will actually notice anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. I am not so likely to trust any numbers until the situation is clearer:
to judge from the news coverage, the company has changed its story several times now: no radioactivity released and no damage to the reactor; a 1.5 liter release from a sloshing fuel pool; a 315 gallon release from a sloshing fuel fuel; 350 gallons leaked from a reactor with two cracks in it.

Unfortunately, as indicated by the link below, and as you probably already know, the company has a long history of cover-ups. You will easily find other examples for yourself, if you look. In light of that history, I see no reason to believe their latest numbers, since they keep changing their story. And so I consider your simple multiplication, using the current numbers (which should be regarded as unreliable), as entirely meaningless.

Posted on: Thursday, 1 March 2007, 15:00 CST
Tokyo Electric Reports Nuclear Power Cover-Up Cases to Gov't

By Kyodo News International, Tokyo

Mar. 1--TOKYO -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Thursday reported to the government about a series of cover-up and data manipulation cases involving nuclear power plants it operates in Niigata and Fukushima prefectures.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry voiced "deep regret" about the mishaps and said it will decide what levels of penalty it will impose on Tokyo Electric after studying a detailed report the company will compile by the end of the month.

"We regret that (the utility) falsified data," said Takao Kitabata, vice minister of economy, trade and industry. "We've ordered all power companies to examine all their operations (in the past and present) and present us all (irregularities they find) by the end of March." Kitabata said at a news conference that without such efforts, Tokyo Electric and other power companies will not ensure safety and win trust from residents near the sites of their nuclear power plants. ~snip~
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/857649/tokyo_elec...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
67. It all depends on what leaked and from where.
Basically if it leaked from the reactor, it's probably pretty clean. Radioactive discharges to the environment happen quite often actually, they're simply not reported to the public. As I can't find anything giving specifics on where and how I'll assume that knowledge has a security clearance attached and not risk violating mine. The point being, it's water, with very small ammounts of radioactive particulates in it. This isn't TMI or Chernobyl, we don't have ruptured fuel cells spewing fission fragments out into the environment. Various groups would be all over that if that were the case. Since it's not, I'm not too worried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Highway61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. Oh My God
Doesn't sound good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. no, this is frightening.
I hope it's not as bad as it sounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. honestly i'm kinda surprised this doesn't happen more often n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YellowRubberDuckie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. It does...
We just don't hear about it.
Duckie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gauguin57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. A cautionary tale for everyone who wants to bring back nuke power in a big way!
This is scary. I hope this can be contained quickly ... the Japanese have had enough nuclear problems for 10 lifetimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lakeguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
65. yes, instead lets keep burning fossil fuels because only, what...
hundreds of thousands of people die each year from the pollution. add to the that the continuing addition of dangerous CO2 to the atmosphere. how many deaths is/will global warming cause?

how many will die from this 'leak'. you nuke o phobes will continue to justify killing people by burning fossil fuels because of the threat of 'what might happen' with a nuclear accident or the future 'danger'of waste that can be reprocessed down to tiny amounts. no mention of the wast danger with fossil fuel burning though (CO2, mercury, etc.).

there is no way to power the planet without nuclear (even with super duper mega fast ramp up of alternatives) in the near term (next 50 years or so) so unless you want to continue justifying 25% of all worldwide deaths caused directly by fossil fuel burning (add in some more for GW), maybe you should think about nuclear. how many people has nuclear energy killed since its inception? compared to how many have died due to fossil fuel burning during that same time frame?

i used to be anti nuke as well but we will need help to get to the next century unless you want to deplete the planet of both oil and coal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. I always was amazed that Japan would have anything to with
atomic power. Or us either. The only reactor we need is put quite sensibly where it is - about 93 million miles away. Repeat after me - these things always leak, they are never never never safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. "There are two kinds of concrete: that which has cracked and that which has not cracked yet,"
as an old friend of mine says.

Nuclear is wonderfully clean and safe until suddenly it isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. the amount that leaked
was fairly minor, about 315 gallons

"the plant leaked about 315 gallons of water, said Katsuya Uchino, another Tokyo Electric official. Uchino said the water contained a tiny amount of radioactive material -- a billionth of

the guideline under Japanese law -- and is believed to have flushed into the Sea of Japan"

http://www.mail.com/newsarticle.aspx?catId=&articleId=1...

these things do NOT "always leak" and they are actually quite safe. coal fired plants residue is actually more dangerous than the waste from a nuclear power plant. In fact if you do the right thing and reprocess the "waste" into new fuel and medical purposes, the amount of 'waste' is actually quite small.


we need nuclear power, in addition to solar, wind, water, geothermal if we truly want to get off of fossil fuels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. We don't need nuclear power
According to a 1991 DOE report, there is enough harvestable wind energy in Kansas, Texas and North Dakota alone to power the entire US through the year 2030.

Oh, and as far as waste goes, spent fuel is actually a rather minor part of nuclear waste. Much more non-fuel waste, everything from paper swipes to the containment vessel itself, is produced by reactors than spent fuel. And there is absolutely no safe way to dispose of all of that waste. Yucca mountain is a joke, as is any notion of burying it. All we would be doing is handing our children's children's children a huge disaster.

As far as leaks go, there are actually many of them that happen around the country every year. There were seventeen leaks of radioactive water in 2006, a fairly standard number. I haven't seen any of the 2007 numbers yet, but I do know of one personally, a reactor that has leaked out tritium into the water.

We don't need, and should use, nuclear power. Too many problems that make nuclear unsuitable for our use, especially when we have other sources that are much more clean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The UN Climate Chief states otherwise
"Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said on 21 June that he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy. He was speaking at the launch of the World Energy Council's (WEC's) Energy and Climate Change study..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Funny, but his own countrymen are proving him wrong
As the Netherlands continue to lead the way in powering their country with wind, and phasing out nuclear power :shrug:

Sorry, but the word of one bureacrat isn't worth much in the face of scientific reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. A huge proportion of that wind is generated in the winter.
Many parts of the nation do not use electricity to heat their homes, but almost all parts of the nation use electricity to cool. The summer is ususally the least windy of the seasons according to the wind charts that I have seen.

I like the idea of wind power, but I think that we have a long ways to go with building transmission lines and finding good means of storing electricity over time before we'll be able to run our electric grid solely on the wind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Actually the DOE addressed that in their report
And found that there was sufficient wind power in all seasons for our electrical needs. As far as transmission goes, I think that our national system of large regional grids, that can transmit power over a thousand miles, is fully capable of dealing with these problems. Let's say that there is no wind blowing in Dallas, they can still go and get their electricity from OK, where the wind is always blowing. Likewise with the coastal reagion.

I'm not saying that we won't have to do some infranstructure work. But I think that with what we have now and a bit of work, we can indeed power our entire country off of wind. Hell, other countries are openly wondering why we don't, since we have been described as the "Saudi Arabia" of wind power :shrug:

We don't have the luxury to wait. Fossil fuels are killing us, nuclear power is too risky. Therefore let us go with wind and sun now, not in some mythical future. We have the capacity, we have the tech, we have a good portion of the needed infrastructure. All that is needed now is to exert our collective will in order to make it so.

Any other choice leads to death and disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
62. Do you have a link to that DOE report?
However, according to the maps, the wind does not always blow in Oklahoma. And the sun simply does not shine much during the winter season in the northeast quadrant of the country. Yes, there are maps for this, too.

The rickety system connecting North Dakota to just about anywhere else simply will not now carry the enormous amount of electricity that could be generated there.

For an alternate view of wind power, you might want to try theoildrum.com and use their search function.

I'm serious about this, too. Very serious. I'm looking for something more than DOE assurances because I simply haven't seen much coming out of them that's really a hard look at hard problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
58. There are a few problems with wind energy
But considering the paltry amounts of money spent for refining and improving the technology things could only be looking up. Those other alternative renewable energy sources are going to have to be getting a big boost also considering the price of oil.

What are the problems with using wind energy?
http://library.thinkquest.org/26366/text/alternative/wi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. Some of those "problems" are bogus
"Economically, the initial cost for wind turbines is greater than that of conventional fossil fuel generators." True, but the cost for wind energy over the long run is becoming increasingly competitive with conventional fossil fuel plants. In addition, the costs would be even more competitive if conventional power plants, both fossil fuel and nuclear, didn't recieve massive govenment subsidies. Plus there are other costs not being factored into this equation. What is the true cost of all that carbon and pollution being spewed into the air? How much would we save on health care if there were no fossil fuel plants? What is the cost of the enviromental damage done by these plants? You see, when you factor in all costs, wind energy starts looking like a bargain.

". . .there is noise produced by the rotor blades. . ." Yes, there is, but not that much. Have you ever listened to a wind farm? It isn't some deafening roar, it is a much gentler sound. Besides, most wind farms are located in less populated areas. And no, it doesn't scare the livestock either.

". . .there is interference on television signals. . ." Sure, there could be, just like interference from cell phone towers, cars, and other electrical devices can cause interference. But they developed these special little capacitors a long time ago that takes care of that problem :shrug:

". . .there are birds flying into the rotors. . ." Yes, that was a problem with that at one time. Back when they set up an early wind farm at Altamont Pass, those low to the ground, fast turning rotors were indeed bird blenders. But that was thirty years ago, and in the time since then wind turbines have progressed. They have much lower tip speeds, they are placed on higher towers, and the placement with regards to migration paths and such has progressed enormously. There are no wind farms today that contribute significantly to either bird or bat deaths.

". . .dozens of wind turbines standing in a big field or coastline do damage the view presented by nature. . ." Oh, like a smoke belching coal plant is a thing of beauty? Puhleeze. Europe is leading the way in placing wind farms, and they've had few complaints about the aesthetics.

"Furthermore, wind resources might not be available near cities and, even so, the space might be used for other purposes that can generate larger profits. In addition, wind does not blow consistently 24 hours a day and that could cause a problem when the demand for electricity peaks." Well, this can be taken care of much like we take care of the problem today, with our nationally interlocked grid of regional electrical grids. Power can be transported a thousand miles or more to where ever it is needed from where ever it is produced. There's a lot of wind energy in a thousand mile radius.

Wind and solar are the answers to our energy problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. I like solar myself but that thing about storing energy kind of sounds easy to solve.
Really was just trying be the devils advocate a little. Really FREE energy sounds just so neat, especially thinking what free energy would do to a company like Exxon.

There are, no doubt, big interests putting fingers in the dike trying stop all kind of things that consequently would ruin their business by decentralizing institutions or power structures. Those large corporations require everything large and to be ladled out from the top for their survival.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
50. So they'll just mop the floor and fire back up today, eh?
Seeing as how this was a complete nothing and all. How's that new paint coming at Chernobyl?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. this is a completely different
situation than at chernobyl

and if you cannot see that then you need to look at it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. That's what you say. So since it's completely different and
nothing is wrong, they'll fire right back up, right? If not, how is that different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. there was no explosion of the
nuclear core in the japan incident. it is not being fired back up.

there are things that need repairing after the earthquake, but to compare it to chernobyl where htere was a fire and explosion in the core is plain ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. I have slept within 75 feet of an at power reactor.
I have seen radcon techs take samples of the ammount of dirt that is in the primary system (where the reactor water is), and EAT them.

I have danced inside the reactor compartment less than 5 feet away from the top of the reactor itself.

Tell me again how they're unsafe, I'd love to hear your personal experiences from inside the nuclear power industry.

I take 300 millirem per year from the sun (our sensibly placed nuclear reactor), at my present rate of exposure to the nuclear reactor I actually work on I'm going to take maybe 60mr this year. Tell me again which one is more dangerous?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathappened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. pray tell
and how long have we been doing all the things you are telling us about , if you are young and cocky we will see what you feel like down the road aways , if you have been doing this for a long time , we will be looking for you on the list of people who have lost there lifes from working at the power plant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. 2 years for me. 16 years is the average for my bosses.
They feel fine, in fact most have yet to break the magic 1 Rem marker for their entire career. One rem from the plant, not from natural sources.

Perhaps you would rather talk to the guy with five kids?

I tell you what, go eat like 10 bannanas, you'll get slightly more radioactive due to naturally occuring radioactive potassium 40.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium
"K-40 occurs in natural potassium (and thus in some commercial salt substitutes) in sufficient quantity that large bags of those substitutes can be used as a radioactive source for classroom demonstrations. In healthy animals and people, K-40 represents the largest source of radioactivity, greater even than C-14. In a human body of 70 kg mass, about 4,400 nuclei of K-40 decay per second."
Note: I made a slight edit to the quote because the 40 did not translate as superscript when I cut and pasted. Hence I placed the nucleid shorthand into a more standard readable format. K = Potassium, C = Carbon, # = specific nucleid of concern.

Fear is the tactic of the administration. I do not fear nuclear power because I understand it, and I have helped to harness it to perform useful tasks. If more people would better themselves by learning about heat transfer and fluid flow, neutron kinetics, high energy ionizing radiation and its sources, tenth thickness shielding calculations, etc etc etc... They would be a lot less afraid of it. But instead they would rather knock the top of a mountain off and spew tons of sulfur and CO2 into the atmosphere by burning coal. And that's really what this is about. Established industry and who wins the fight. Wind and solar are not established, coal and nuclear are. Pick one, because Oil is almost gone and people are going to demand a proven replacement. Coal is winning, and that is a very bad thing for this planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
8. Nuclear scare after Japan quake
Nuclear scare after Japan quake

A strong earthquake in central Japan has damaged a large nuclear power plant causing a leak of radioactive material, officials at the plant have said.
Water containing radioactive substances leaked into the sea and a fire broke out in one of the Kashiwazaki plant's electrical transformers.

The reactors at the plant automatically shut down during the magnitude 6.8 earthquake.

At least seven people were killed and hundreds injured in the earthquake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6901213.s...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
9. Damn this seems ironic to me. About to get my kitty irradiated a few hours from now...
... arguably to make her more healthy (radioactive iodine for hyperthyroidism).

Feels weird seeing this news this morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. Hope kitty will be OK. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. Lot's of hysteria before we even know how much damage (if any serious) was done
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:11 AM by davepc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Radioactive material leaking into the sea is never good
"Water containing radioactive substances leaked into the sea"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. "Many a mickle makes a muckle." -- Scottish Proverb. . .
(nuclear epitaph)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
14. What radioactive material and how much?
It's rather important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. 315 gallons
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 11:57 AM by sabbat hunter
of minorly radioactive water. it went into the sea of japan. a miniscule amount when in proportion to the sea of japan.

it was equal to a billionth of the amount allowed under japanese law to give a bit more prespective.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That doesn't really say how much.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. linkage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. But will the next earthquake related damage be so minor?
That it can happen is now proven. That it will happen again is only a matter of time, especially in an area with as many earthquakes as Japan. Next time, will it be only a small amount of minorly radioactive water?

Another issue that I have not yet seen discussed: Why was the water radioactive? Normal water, even heavy water (H20 made with deuterium rather than normal hydrogen) is not normally radioactive. If the water was radioactive, was it because of uranium or trans-uranium particles in the water? As a heavy metal, uranium, plutonium, neptunium and other metals likely to contaminate water in a nuclear reactor are extremely toxic, much more so than an equivalent weight of lead, cadmium or selenium. This is in addition to and separate from the radioactivity, which poses its own risks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. It's radioactive because it contains plant impurities.
Corrosion from the pipes slowly sloughs off into the coolant, co-59 hardened valve seats shear miniscule ammounts that go through the reactor and get activated, small trace ammounts of uranium are rolled into the outside of the fuel cell cladding during the roll bind process and then either break free or absorb neutrons and fission out as fission fragments. All in all though activity levels in modern PWR's are very low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. How far is it from Hiroshima? From Nagasaki? In any case, look for HUGE demonstrations
this August 6-- ththe anniversary of first use of nukes against thousands of civilians (by the US of course, still the only nation that has nuked tens of thousands of people deliberately).

Can you imagine the horror of people deformed by their parents' exposure to US nukes in 1945 who happen to live near the plant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
27. how do you say "hey i'm glowing in the dark" in Japanese?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. Oi, ore wa keikou shiteiru yo
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:19 PM by Art_from_Ark
(Oy, o-ray wah kay-koh shi-TAY-ru yo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. OY?They must be one of the lost tribes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
59. "hikatte iru" hou ga ii jya nai no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
30. 315 gallons is nothing compared to the volume of the Sea of Japan.
I wouldn't get too concerned over this, as pointed out in my post above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Depends on How Much Radiation
is in that 315 gallons. Could be a lot. Any amount is bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. Water is a fantastic radiation barrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Gah, you beat me, I was going to post the same thing!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
51. Remind me, please,
how much nuclear waste, fuel, or material has been leaked into any body of water by a windmill? Pretty much zero, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Show me a windmill that produces energy at a steady rate.
Hopefully by the time I'm an 61-year-old geezer 40 years from now we will have Fusion power so the whole discussion will be moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Come to McCamey Texas and stand on the buttes with dozens
of these beauties. Their only problem? They produce so much electricity that they must be shut down periodically while more transmission lines are being built.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
63. If the US would of invested the same of funds on alternatives like solar or wind...............
as they have with all this nuclear B.S. there would be a good chance we wouldn't be having these debates about it because there would have been good chance it would have been solved.


alternative.energy
http://library.thinkquest.org/26366/text/index.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lakeguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
68. more deaths caused by wind than nuclear if you count
deaths per watt produced. i'm too lazy to look up the link for you but you can use the google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
39. Yeah, if terrorists or earthquakes don't destroy them . . . they'll justmake us sick!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
42. Hell in Albuquerque, NM
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 09:46 PM by burrowowl
not only are bombs stored, but we have an uncontained nuclear reactor in the path of planes landing and taking off, St.Pete Dominici hasn't done a thing about containing it, and if anything happens, goodby Alburque, however, if they want to get to the nuclear weapons stored there, they will have to wear suits to protect the people getting them out for use. Actually New mexico is probably the biggest Nuke Power in the World or close to it.
Edit: I forgot to add, Good-bye Rio Grande, i.e., West Texas and Mexico down to Brownsville.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
48. NUMBERS!
You can use Curies or Becquerels.

Until we have actual numbers, this is all just fear-mongering.

And, no, the numbers "9-11" don't count.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
61. Re post 42
nobody cares about Albuquerque, NM and a large percentage of our Nuke!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC