Give me a reason to doubt this: Leaked TEPCO report: 120 billion Becquerels of plutonium, 7.6 trillion Becquerels of neptunium
http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/10/news-media-knew-1-2%C3%971012-bq-of-p...
Leaked TEPCO report: 120 billion Becquerels of plutonium, 7.6 trillion Becquerels of neptunium released in first 100 hours — Media concealed risk to public
I don't read Japanese. Does the report say that? Can it be a fabrication? How can we know?
If this is true, there is nothing comparable in history, is there? This seems very dark indeed. These would be the hot particles we were looking for, no?
Yeah, that's true... ...but
Yeah, that's true...
...but it's still a big darned figure, and dumped into the environment all at once, not in (relative) drips and drabs over a period of 30 or 35 years. A little like getting four months' worth of annual rain over the course of a single weekend.
NOT the end of the world, nor all life therein. But I'm STILL not consuming Pacific seafood if I can help it.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Really?? Have you done the math?
..but it's still a big darned figure,
----------------------------------------
Really?? Have you done the math? Let's do the math...
First, a little background. The radioactivity (Bq) is the product of the decay constant and the number of radioactive atoms:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html
and the decay constant is the natural log of 2 divided by the half-life.
So we have 120 Billion Bq of Pu-239, which has a half-life of 24,100 years.
Half-life = 24,100 years = 7.6e+08 seconds
decay constant lambda = ln(2) / 7.60e+08 sec = 9.11e-13 inverse seconds
(lambda) N = 120 Billion Bq = 1.2e+11 inverse seconds
N(atoms) = 1.2e+11 / (lambda) = 1.2e+11 / 9.11e-13 = 1.31e+23 atoms
Now there are 6.02e+23 atoms in a mole. Therefore:
N(moles) = 1.31e+23 / 6.02e+23 atoms/mole = 0.218 moles
Since the atomic weight of Pu-239 is 239; a mole will have a mass of 239 gms
N(grams) = 0.218 moles * 239.0 grams/mole = 52.2 grams
Did ANY of you realize that you are getting so upset and talking about some great catastrophe; and it's all over just 52 grams of Pu-239?
The amount of Pu-239 in the environment due to '50s weapons testing is about 10 metric tons = 10,000 kilograms = 10 MILLION grams.
We have 10 MILLION grams of Pu-239 already in the environment; and Fukushima just added 52.2 grams more.
Now what were you saying about it being a large amount?
Are you still just using the
Are you still just using the first 100 hours figure? The total estimate is much higher... and these figures tend to be lowballed, for obvious reasons.
Also, did your figure
Also, did your figure include the much larger amount of neptunium, which I understand decays into plutonium?
x10 there's an error in your
x10
there's an error in your math,
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/attach_04_2.pdf
reports in the text 1.2x10^12 Bq of Pu-241, so 1200 billion, not 120 billion,
your result should therefore be corrected from 52.2 g to
ten times that or 522g (half a kilogram) and for Pu-241 only, and not Pu-239,
the other isotopes have their own totals.
1200 billion becquerels of
1200 billion becquerels of Plutonium-241 correspond to 0.312 grams of Plutonium-241, according to wolframalpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plutonium+241
3.2 billion becquerels of Plutonium-239 correspond to 1.3933 grams of Plutonium-239
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plutonium+239
And as I understand it,
And as I understand it, theoretically speaking, one pound (a little less than 500g) of Plutonium evenly distributed around the globe is enough to kill every single person living on this planet.
That's the Helen Caldicott LIE
And as I understand it, theoretically speaking, one pound (a little less than 500g) of Plutonium evenly distributed around the globe is enough to kill every single person living on this planet.
=================================
That maxim traces back to anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott, who says that a pound of Plutonium evenly distributed around the globe will kill every living thing on Earth.
The problem is that the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons put 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium in the environment. That 10 metric tonnes is 10,000 kilograms or about 20,000 pounds. This Plutonium was vaporized in the explosion, hurled high into the atmosphere, and from there pretty much evenly distributed itself around the world.
So the amount of Plutonium that has actually been distributed evenly around the world is 20,000 times GREATER than what Helen Caldicott says will kill every living creature on Earth.
I'm feeling well; I certainly don't think I'm dead.
Helen Caldicott EXAGGERATED the toxicity of Plutonium by greater than a factor of 20,000! We have 20,000 times her amount and we're not dead.
Helen Caldicott is just using good old fashion scare tactics. She's not be honest about what the true situation is. She exaggerates the danger to get people to do what she wants them to do, instead of giving people accurate information and letting the public decide for themselves.
She evidently doesn't trust the public to "do the right" thing; so she scares them with exaggerated information into doing what she wants.
Know Anyone With Cancer?
Since you're so f'n brilliant, have you got an explanation for why cancer wasn't much of a problem before industrial-age mad science started poisoning the world?
You can admit we put ten tonnes of plutonium in the air in the 60's and yet the cancer explosion is not related?
Oh, I know it can't be traced, all this glowing trash the mad scientists are putting into our closed and finite ecosystem in the name of "progress." It can't be traced, no one can say exactly where all this cancer is coming from..
And yet there you are spouting about how it's been perfectly all right to pollute our thin layer of air and our earth and our oceans with this.
Here's something I know and you don't have to be an expert to know it. If we lose our oceans, we are done.
And if the people who build these nuke plants are so damn smart, and everything just works perfectly until it doesn't, and you all are still running around the US running plants riddled with fire hazards (as propublica reported) --then I truly don't understand why no one was smart enough to come up with appropriate safety features to protect these machines. I mean common sense--you have reactors on fault lines in California and you, Mr. Expert, are doing nothing about it.
Probably because you think it's not poisonous.
Know anyone with cancer?
It's NOT related
You can admit we put ten tonnes of plutonium in the air in the 60's and yet the cancer explosion is not related?
=====================
It's not related because the radiation dose due to weapons testing fallout is miniscule compared to what Mother Nature exposes us to. Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
The radiation exposure due to the weapons testing fallout is less than 0.03% of the background exposure that everyone gets courtesy of Mother Nature.
With all the data not
With all the data not collected, radionuclides not searched for, not found, not proved beyond every possible down, causes of cancers, heart diseases, cataracts, stillborns, miscarriages, congenital abnormalities, lung problems, cognitive problems, and so on, not absolutely certain, and information swept under the carpet, the rug, behind the furniture, and all manner of distraction, here's hoping we don't have the data to convince the greediest, most influential holdouts that plutonium is extremely toxic to human life well until after our future generations are too weak and too surrounded by it to do anything about it. Hey, as long as you can get that yacht, am I right?
[Chuckle] I do love it when
[Chuckle] I do love it when the default need of loud-mouthed idiots to engage in random acts of self-expression backfires, resulting in their public immolation.
For the record, yes, I did the math, having taken Chem 101 at an accredited university, and, yes, I stand by my contention that the estimated radionuclide release from Fukushima Dai-ichi, that is ongoing btw, IS "a lot", AND "too darned much", besides. I'd wager folding money that even the folks at BRAWM might back me up in that assessment, too.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
(972) 746-8575
d-bag got schooled-tricky ricky got burnt up!LOL
nuthin' more to see here-dude got immolated ~again~ note to kid who so easily got him to bite citing high school math;we've been letting the old sea dog believe he single-handedly saved the world from Fukushima as a gesture of kindness to allow him some semblance of achievment after his super powers left him starting when his tights shrunk in the wash & a little black kid stole his cape & high-heeled adida's after he saw him steal his little sisters bicycle seat as revenge.But thankfully they still make him register his address in case the neighborhoods bike seats & underwear start going missing again.Sadly he still thinks that blue glowing light in the sky originating 6,000 miles west across the Pacific is Commissioner Gordon sending him the Bat Signal! Humor him and allow his meds to kick in-after all it could be your cat stuck in the tree when he comes hobbling to the rescue one day sporting the foil wrappers from two Hershey's Kisses wrapped around his junk to shield them from the gamma rays!!
Mods?
This just gets worse and worse.
I'm here looking for answers and some respect around a very frightening topic, and look at this crap.
Losing respect fast
"sporting the foil wrappers
"sporting the foil wrappers from two Hershey's Kisses wrapped around his junk to shield them from the gamma rays"
LOL LOL!
I have to admit... I get a
I have to admit... I get a real kick out of reading your rants. It's like an autistic Magnetic Poetry Kit.
Why don't you ever call, or write? Gosh darn it, I miss you and your MHMR-ness.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
(972) 746-8575