Don't.Mess.With.Kes<3 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Guys, seriously don't start taking iodine supplements. You'll do more harm to yourself than good. I'm really sick of all the fear-mongering. You'll get more radiation from normal cell phone use. Every time I turn on the news, they always ask "what's the worst case scenario?". That's like the only question they ask. We already know what the worst case scenario is because you repeated it 500 times already. It baffles me really. People who are 500km away from this aren't panicking, yet people who are 8000km away who will most likely be affected in a way that it's statistically zero freak out. It also concerns me that if ever disaster struck, even on a small scale we'd turn into Mad Max. We're so sheltered here that people just don't understand what hardship is, so we think anything that happens at all is the end of the world. People say the worst thing you can do in an accident is to panic. There are plenty of people who could remain calm, but given the history of the last few years it seems to me there are enough who would panic to cause us serious problems. Sorry for the rant. I honestly think people have life so good here that we look for reasons to be afraid. Fear-mongering doesn't even exist in places with real hardship. You don't have to hear someone tell you, you live it. And it's not harmless because it leads to real world problems. It really becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I also honestly believe people have an addiction to fear. And it has nothing to do with caution because how many people do you know who actually have a 72-hour survival kit? It's like life here is so mundane that people actually hope something will happen out of some desire to feel alive. I agree with you that people hear are worrying over every little thing however, with what's happened in Japan, and the numerous newspapers telling people the exact same thing will happen to us, it's kind of hard not to be freaking out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquiace Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Why is there no looting in Japan? http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no-looting-in-japan/?hpt=T1 pretty good read Because cooperation is built into the Japanese culture. Our culture (and particularly in the US) is more competitive. Also, despite the 20-odd years of recession the Japanese don't have the kind of inequality that we have. You can literally draw lines around sections of towns that are lower-class, middle-class and upper-class here. We're a very stratified society in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhinogator Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) you will not need iodide. I used to live 10 km near a nuclear power plant for 5 years and the government handed them out for free but we never needed them. Basically you will only need 1300 mg of it before your body can't take anymore and that is 10 pills. The prescription that we had was 1 tablet a day with a dosage of 130 mg which means it gives you a 10 day protection only and anything after that you are on your own. Please don't go out and stock up on these and god forbid please don't take them. I'm sure the canadian government will hand them out IF its needed, but you won't have to buy them yourself right now. Just some FYI on radiation fallouts and iodide. Edit: if that doesn't convince you eat lots of seaweed, its rich in KI. Edited March 15, 2011 by Crescent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquiace Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I agree with you that people hear are worrying over every little thing however, with what's happened in Japan, and the numerous newspapers telling people the exact same thing will happen to us, it's kind of hard not to be freaking out. Concern and precaution are normal. But people aren't getting the full facts, or if they are, they are too easily accepting information that is misleading. People lack a truly comprehensive knowledge of the things they fear. For example, they say "radioactive cloud", what are you going to think? Then you're told it was 809 micro sieverts. Do people even understand what that means? Most people don't. I'll bet you 9/10 people who bought Iodine supplements because they heard that the Japanese people closest to the plants were taking them. I'm imagining people taking them like Tylenol without even knowing what side-effects it will cause their bodies. Take another kinda off-topic example: In 2001, 2 people were attacked and killed by sharks. Everyone freaked out and starting culling sharks to deal with this "shark problem". People heard the talking heads about a shark invasion and freaked out. But when the scientific community said "um, what are you guys doing?" and pointed out that shark attacks were down since previous years. People are simply too quick to panic and that makes people do stupid things. The media is driven by ratings and nothing drives ratings more than fear... even if it's unnecessary fear. It's not that this situation isn't worrisome, but action without wrong/incomplete information can be more harmful than inaction. I'm glad that there are many people coming out and explaining the situation in as much depth as people can understand without being trained in that field. It's definitely helping, but I'm still surprised that it's either being ignored or worse, calling it a "cover up" or "downplaying". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Fire at Japan nuclear reactor heightens radiation threat 38 Minutes Ago International atomic agency chief frustrated at lack of information from Japan * "What the hell is going on?" - PM Kan to nuclear plant operator * More than 10,000 feared killed by quake, tsunami; 140,000 told to stay indoors * Japan stocks end down more than 10 percent; $620 billion wiped off market in 2 days * Some foreign companies pull employees out, others move staff to safety in south http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-idUSL3E7EF3OE20110315 Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment. Now, with one Mark 1 containment vessel damaged at the embattled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and other vessels there under severe strain, the weaknesses of the design — developed in the 1960s by General Electric — could be contributing to the unfolding catastrophe. When the ability to cool a reactor is compromised, the containment vessel is the last line of defense. Typically made of steel and concrete, it is designed to prevent — for a time — melting fuel rods from spewing radiation into the environment if cooling efforts completely fail. In some reactors, known as pressurized water reactors, the system is sealed inside a thick, steel-and-cement tomb. Most nuclear reactors around the world are of this type. But the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant — and in 23 American reactors at 16 plants — is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs. G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure. American regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on. In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended in a memo that the sort of “pressure-suppression” system used in G.E.’s Mark 1 plants presented unacceptable safety risks and that it should be discontinued. Among his concerns were that the smaller containment design was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. “What are the safety advantages of pressure suppression, apart from the cost saving?” Mr. Hanauer asked in the 1972 memo... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest Damaged Japanese Nuclear Plant Has Five Mark 1 Reactors Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident. Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s. "The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release." The situation on the ground at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is so fluid, and the details of what is unfolding are so murky, that it may be days or even weeks before anyone knows how the Mark 1 containment system performed in the face of a devastating combination of natural disasters. But the ability of the containment to withstand the events that have cascaded from what nuclear experts call a "station blackout" -- where the loss of power has crippled the reactor's cooling system -- will be a crucial question as policy makers re-examine the safety issues that surround nuclear power, and specifically the continued use of what is now one of the oldest types of nuclear reactors still operating. Follow BrianRoss on Twitter GE told ABC News the reactors have "a proven track record of performing reliably and safely for more than 40 years" and "performed as designed," even after the shock of a 9.0 earthquake. Still, concerns about the Mark 1 design have resurfaced occasionally in the years since Bridenbaugh came forward. In 1986, for instance, Harold Denton, then the director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, spoke critically about the design during an industry conference. "I don't have the same warm feeling about GE containment that I do about the larger dry containments" he said. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquiace Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Very interesting read. I'd like to find some information about how many of the current nuclear reactors in use haven't been upgraded or updated for 20 or more years. The anecdotes I've heard indicate that substantial amount--particularly in the US--are basically from the same era. The primary reason is that since Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the movie China Syndrome (thanks Michael Douglas) basically made the public resist investing in further nuclear reactor development. For France, it's their primary mode of power generation. Japan, on the other hand, is also one of the countries to embrace nuclear technology. So you'd think they would phase out older designs over time. We're talking about designs that are 40+ years old. Given how much more we know today, common sense would be that older reactors would be de-commissioned in favor of safer, more reliable ones. When talking about alternatives, I'm surprised geothermal power isn't getting more support. In terms of safe, renewable and accessible power, you don't get much more than that. I understand it's a fairly significant investment because there hasn't been that much research on utilizing it to its potential but the consensus is that it is enormous potential. People put tons of R&D into hydrogen power, which by all accounts is a waste, why don't they put R&D into an energy source that doesn't require us to use energy to get more energy? Or worse, use potentially deadly fuel to get energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Very interesting read. I'd like to find some information about how many of the current nuclear reactors in use haven't been upgraded or updated for 20 or more years. The anecdotes I've heard indicate that substantial amount--particularly in the US--are basically from the same era. The primary reason is that since Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the movie China Syndrome (thanks Michael Douglas) basically made the public resist investing in further nuclear reactor development. For France, it's their primary mode of power generation. Japan, on the other hand, is also one of the countries to embrace nuclear technology. So you'd think they would phase out older designs over time. We're talking about designs that are 40+ years old. Given how much more we know today, common sense would be that older reactors would be de-commissioned in favor of safer, more reliable ones. When talking about alternatives, I'm surprised geothermal power isn't getting more support. In terms of safe, renewable and accessible power, you don't get much more than that. I understand it's a fairly significant investment because there hasn't been that much research on utilizing it to its potential but the consensus is that it is enormous potential. People put tons of R&D into hydrogen power, which by all accounts is a waste, why don't they put R&D into an energy source that doesn't require us to use energy to get more energy? Or worse, use potentially deadly fuel to get energy? Geothermal isn't available everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Very interesting read. I'd like to find some information about how many of the current nuclear reactors in use haven't been upgraded or updated for 20 or more years. The anecdotes I've heard indicate that substantial amount--particularly in the US--are basically from the same era. The primary reason is that since Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the movie China Syndrome (thanks Michael Douglas) basically made the public resist investing in further nuclear reactor development. For France, it's their primary mode of power generation. Japan, on the other hand, is also one of the countries to embrace nuclear technology. So you'd think they would phase out older designs over time. We're talking about designs that are 40+ years old. Given how much more we know today, common sense would be that older reactors would be de-commissioned in favor of safer, more reliable ones. When talking about alternatives, I'm surprised geothermal power isn't getting more support. In terms of safe, renewable and accessible power, you don't get much more than that. I understand it's a fairly significant investment because there hasn't been that much research on utilizing it to its potential but the consensus is that it is enormous potential. People put tons of R&D into hydrogen power, which by all accounts is a waste, why don't they put R&D into an energy source that doesn't require us to use energy to get more energy? Or worse, use potentially deadly fuel to get energy? Ah yes, can't build new ones but can't moth ball the grandfathered ones. Perhaps a review o' the whole policy is in order eh? Why wouldn't you build the plant downsteam from a natural water body and in the worse case scenario you just divert the flow so you don't even need power? There could be all kinds of meltdowns but nuclear power isn't going anywhere. Might as well make it as safe and effecient as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Concern and precaution are normal. But people aren't getting the full facts, or if they are, they are too easily accepting information that is misleading. People lack a truly comprehensive knowledge of the things they fear. For example, they say "radioactive cloud", what are you going to think? Then you're told it was 809 micro sieverts. Do people even understand what that means? Most people don't. I'll bet you 9/10 people who bought Iodine supplements because they heard that the Japanese people closest to the plants were taking them. I'm imagining people taking them like Tylenol without even knowing what side-effects it will cause their bodies. Take another kinda off-topic example: In 2001, 2 people were attacked and killed by sharks. Everyone freaked out and starting culling sharks to deal with this "shark problem". People heard the talking heads about a shark invasion and freaked out. But when the scientific community said "um, what are you guys doing?" and pointed out that shark attacks were down since previous years. People are simply too quick to panic and that makes people do stupid things. The media is driven by ratings and nothing drives ratings more than fear... even if it's unnecessary fear. It's not that this situation isn't worrisome, but action without wrong/incomplete information can be more harmful than inaction. I'm glad that there are many people coming out and explaining the situation in as much depth as people can understand without being trained in that field. It's definitely helping, but I'm still surprised that it's either being ignored or worse, calling it a "cover up" or "downplaying". "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Men In Black. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Why is there no looting in Japan? http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no-looting-in-japan/?hpt=T1 pretty good read Collectivist attitude and belief that the goals of the group should be placed higher than goals of the person. That's why you see engineers rushing into failing nuclear power plants to try and save the populace from suffering radiation poisoning; that's why you see businesses slashing prices in the wake of the earthquake to provide for those that need food and H2O; even before this, a Japanese CEO cut his salary down to a minimum amount because of the recessions and how he, as head, must take responsibility to ensure his workers are still being paid. THAT is the collectivist attitude, and it's a damn shame that we individualists cannot adapt to this when necessary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquiace Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Geothermal isn't available everywhere. Actually it is. Until recently, you basically needed access to a geothermal "hot spot" such as a hot spring where water from seismically active regions naturally create heat near the surface. You basically need to drill down to access it. There have been advancements in technology that allows us to harvest energy at much lower temperatures such as binary cycle plants. When talking about sheer potential, it's even greater than solar, wind and tidal. But it still requires R&D and it seems people are more interested to invest in other forms because they don't require us to stop using fossil fuels to create. It's a shame, but that's just the way this world seems to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquiace Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Ah yes, can't build new ones but can't moth ball the grandfathered ones. Perhaps a review o' the whole policy is in order eh? Why wouldn't you build the plant downsteam from a natural water body and in the worse case scenario you just divert the flow so you don't even need power? There could be all kinds of meltdowns but nuclear power isn't going anywhere. Might as well make it as safe and effecient as possible. A number of plants do use that and it seems to be a far more ideal location. Given how prone that particular area is to earthquakes, you'd think someone would have raised their hand in that board meeting and said "We kinda get a lot of big earthquakes directly off shore from here. You think maybe we should pick a different spot?" I imagine that person was then hit with a shinai. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Men In Black. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin. Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The Japanese are truly admirable. If they ever picked up hockey, they would make the perfect selfless teammates (like Swedes). Also, BC doesn't use nuclear energy, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Nuclear fusion is the ultimate goal, but that takes research and time which needs $$$$$. DEMO (proposed nuclear fusion power plant) is supposed to go up in 2025 The following timetable was presented at the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference in 2004 by Prof. Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith.[2] These dates are conceptual and as such are subject to change. * Conceptual design is to be complete by 2017 * Engineering design is to be complete by 2024 * The first 'Construction Phase' is to last from 2024 to 2033 * The first phase of operation is to last from 2033 to 2038 * The plant is then to be expanded/updated * The second phase of operation is to last from 2040 onwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO All proposed before the recession, Costly nuclear fusion demo worries cash-strapped EU Edited March 16, 2011 by key2thecup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The Japanese are truly admirable. If they ever picked up hockey, they would make the perfect selfless teammates (like Swedes). Also, BC doesn't use nuclear energy, do we? They've had a national hockey team playing competetively in top level tournaments since 1967......and started in 1930. And no, B.C. doesn't use nuclear power....we get most (90%) of our electricity from hydroelectric generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psylocke Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The Japanese are truly admirable. If they ever picked up hockey, they would make the perfect selfless teammates (like Swedes). Also, BC doesn't use nuclear energy, do we? They do play hockey there. I think there's a lot the rest of the world can learn from the Japanese people during this tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin. Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 They've had a national hockey team playing competetively in top level tournaments since 1967......and started in 1930. And no, B.C. doesn't use nuclear power....we get most (90%) of our electricity from hydroelectric generation. Oh good, one less thing to worry about if the big one hits. And I meant in the NHL, but I didn't know they played in top level hockey either... Figured hockey to them would be like cricket to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh captain my captain Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Government officials in Japan are saying that workers have suspended operations at the nuclear plants. Anderson Cooper is having a hard time believing that the 50 workers who have been working there have left. Seems like bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaGuaR Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Oh good, one less thing to worry about if the big one hits. And I meant in the NHL, but I didn't know they played in top level hockey either... Figured hockey to them would be like cricket to us. Washington state has a reactor and not to mention the nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines they have in port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaGuaR Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Breaking news from CNN: Workers at Japan's damaged nuclear power plant have suspended operations and evacuated, chief Cabinet secretary says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now