Tepcos radiation release estimate increases
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120523005514.htm
Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated the total amount of radioactive substances discharged from its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant measured 760,000 terabecquerels, 1.6 times the estimate released by the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency in February.
One terabecquerel is equal to 1 trillion becquerels.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120523005514.htm
760,000 x 1000000000000=760 million billion becqureles or 760 quadrillion becqureles ...
Confused
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230470760457742413370132060...
"In December, Tepco and the government declared that the plant has been brought under control. Tepco said Thursday, however, that 240 million becquerels of radioactive materials are still being released into the air every day, a level that is considered by experts to pose no harm since it dissipates quickly."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230470760457742413370132060...
Does that not mean steam is still Being produced ,indicating cold shutdown has not been achieved!!!NRC cold shutdown definition* is 200 degrees or less waters boiling point is 212 degrees .
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/cold-shutdown.html
WRONG!!
You are in error in assuming that vaporization means steam.
You could have just ordinary evaporation! Image putting a water-based perfume on.
You and other people smell it, that means it's going off into the air.
However, is that perfume and its water base turning to steam?
Think about it before jumping to conclusions.
Can't say your wrong about evaporation
But webcams indicate Fukushima is still steaming.
http://enenews.com/gundersen-water-steaming-boiling-radiation-being-give...
Conned by Gundersen!
But webcams indicate Fukushima is still steaming.
============================
Another person that got conned by Gundersen because they don't know basic elementary school science.
Were you absent in elementary school the day they told you that you can't see steam?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_water_vapor_the_same_as_steam
Yes, but that stuff you can see isn't steam. Neither steam nor water vapor are visible. The cloud of white stuff you can see above a boiling kettle is water droplets formed by the condensation of the water vapor/steam as it collides with the cooler air outside the kettle.
What you see in the webcams are heavier than air droplets that got wafted up and will be falling right back down.
Why are the anti-nukes always so manifestly ignorant of even the most basic grade school science; yet they always seem to come to this forum to trumpet their ignorance for all to see.
The smugness of the semi
The smugness of the semi intelligentsia. The 'steam' or water vapor escaping from the ground below the Fukushima reactors is indeed radioactive according to TEPCO itself. And it is being generated by the molten reactor cores that have been burning themselves down towards the underground water table. It is not water vapor from evaporation as another "SI" above has stated.
The answer is YES water vapor is being released in steadily increasing amounts due to the cores and it is radioactive. It is a situation that so far has no known remedy, is getting worse every day and will be with us for an extremely long time.
Because of People like you...
... The world should be worried.
Reactor 4 Building checked
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230406570457742603219386958...
Reports of bulging wall.Sfp 4
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-f...
"The worries picked up new traction in recent days after the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, said it had found a slight bulge in one of the walls of the reactor building, stoking fears over the building’s safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-f...
Just some tip on strategy.
Just some tip on strategy. You could convey the same info without the rants against the "anti-nukes," it would be more effective. When you antagonize people directly you just predispose them to ignore whatever you are saying. I basically agree with your assessment, however.
Anti-nukes are lost causes
I'm not so naive as to think I'm actually going to change the mind of the typical rabid anti-nuke.
However, when others see how manifestly stupid and ignorant the anti-nukes are; they will have second thoughts about joining in with a bunch of brainless idiots
Personal attacks loose the debate
You make the claim that anti-nukes are: rabid, manifestly stupid and ignorant brainless idiots.
Could you please back up these claims with a scientific study that is peer reviewed from a reputable institution that is published in a respected scientific source, or, are your comments just an Ad hominem fallacy?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Just read this forum
Just read this forum.
The anti-nukes come here and tell us that heavy water is radioactive because it contains tritium ( It's not radioactive because it contains deuterium, and not tritium ). They tell us for a given committed dose, that it is worse to get it over a longer time than a shorter time. ( Other way around, damage increases with dose rate. ) They tell us Fukushima blew up like a nuclear bomb. ( It was hydrogen explosions ). The list of errors goes on, and on, and on....
Try finding an anti-nuke that says something sensible on this forum.
Some pro-nuke sensibility 101a
Sorry, but this forum is nothing that comes close to a scientific study. These posts are generally anonymous, no IQ tests were given and there is zero control group. No paper has been written or published on the intelligence of posters here, nor has there been a peer review. You could be the first to make such a study, but a true scientist should never enter into such research with the prejudicial attitude you display. Lacking solid science to back up your claims, they remain circumstantial abusive ad hominem personal attacks that are attempting to berate this forum by showing a guilt by association.
I understand your frustration with poor science, but your debate make your science look poor.
Here is a handy link that may help you to polish your debating skills:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
I could do the study
I could do the study. Before I retired, I was a Physics professor teaching at both the University of Michigan and MIT. While at the University of Michigan, I taught the course usually described as "Physics for Poets", physics for non-science majors.
I saw a lot of students who professed anti-nuclear views. They were more interested in being anti-nuclear than learning the truth in my class. Many of them "learned" from the anti-nuclear websites that radioactivity was "contagious". They thought all you had to do to make something radioactive was to put it next to something else that was radioactive. Of course, this is not the case. UC - Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller makes this point in his book and class "Physics for Future Presidents":
http://books.google.com/books?id=6DBnS2g-KrQC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=is+r...
However, so many anti-nukes just couldn't accept scientific truth when it conflicted with their political dogma. I had to flunk them in my course.
I don't give a DAMN what you think of my debate tactics and what foolish fallacies you think make for good or bad debate tactics. I'm not here to debate anyone.
I can just give you the benefit of my many years of teaching at the University level, and I found that the people who were anti-nuclear were anti-nuclear because they were just plain stupid. Their opinions were not based on informed judgments. They were formed based on the propaganda from other anti-nukes that they failed to checkout and verify.
If you defend them; then I consider you an idiot too.
You should do the study....
You should do the study.... The point is that when people come here and read your posts and see the obvious fallacies, it lowers the quality of the post and distracts from your credibility.
"A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
No error in reasoning...
Could you back up your ill-founded conclusions about logical errors with some facts.
If you say there is a premise that is wrong; then why don't you tell us what that premise is and show that it is wrong with your references.
Instead you just make accusations of fallacy.
I know why. You don't have any arrows in your quiver, and you know it.
Warning: stupid anti-nuke at play
I have yet...
I have yet to meet someone who was anti-nuclear that knew the truth about nuclear power. Perhaps that's why something like 99.9% of physicists and engineers that are have knowledge of the field are pro-nuclear.
NO - the anti-nukes are people that are harboring misconceptions about nuclear power. They think that nuclear power begets nuclear weapons... They don't know that the world is naturally radioactive, so they think all radioactivity is because of nuclear power and nuclear weapons...
If you are anti-nuclear; let's hear what reason you have, and we can all have a good laugh when you are disabused of some silly notion.
Some pro-nuke sensibility 101a
Sorry, but this forum is nothing that comes close to a scientific study. These posts are generally anonymous, no IQ tests were given and there is zero control group. No paper has been written or published on the intelligence of posters here, nor has there been a peer review. You could be the first to make such a study, but a true scientist should never enter into such research with the prejudicial attitude you display. Lacking solid science to back up your claims, they remain circumstantial abusive ad hominem personal attacks that are attempting to berate this forum by showing a guilt by association.
I understand your frustration with poor science, but your debate make your science looks poor.
Here is a handy link that may help you to polish your debating skills:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
And you pretend...
...theres no threat. Your inability to think on your own, is insulting. Your toxic to yourself and the people arround you. Why don't you stop? The Industry grossly under estimated the power of nature( as demonstrated by the strength and size of the buildings that they house radioactive material in). Your babble gives them less creditability.
Study English??
Your toxic to yourself
=================
Idiot anti-nuke never learned about contractions.
The word you want above is not "your"; it is "you're" which is the contraction of "you are".
The self-righteous anti-nukes then have the audacity to ask if there is evidence that they are stupid and ignorant. They provide the evidence every time they post.
Your right!
Guess I was wrong about that. Thanks for the correction. You've made my point even better.
Sorry you are?
OK?
No, Yoda
No, Yoda
Japanese industry...
Another idiot anti-nuke that didn't realize that Three Mile Island also had a hydrogen explosion but that it didn't blow the building apart.
The standards in the USA are different and better than in Japan.
The same is true in the airline industry where the standards set by the USA are much better than those set by Russia.
The self-righteous anti-nuke blowhards persist in their moronic attempt to make people think Fukushima is characteristic of the US nuclear industry, when it isn't.
You obviously are scared!
Sorry but your on this planet just like the rest of us. Try a nuclear hat. It should be able to block the suns rays for you.
Why would I be scared?
Why would I be scared?
What do I have to be afraid of? Do you think I'm afraid of a bunch of idiots that are running around attempting to trump up some scare story because the media has moved on?
The stupid little anti-nukes were hoping for a bigger calamity out of Fukushima; and they didn't get it. The media has moved on and is no longer interested. So they have to trump up a FAKE calamity in order to get back the media attention.
Perfectly understandable tactic for the little morons who have been "crying wolf" for decades.
Ho-hum
Fukushima is a fake calamity?
Fukushima is a fake calamity? I'm sure you meant to choose your words better.
Fukuhima is not a fake, however...
Fukuhima is not a fake, however...
The calamity that the world is in mortal danger because of an imminent collapse of one of the reactor buildings is certainly a FAKE or at least HYPED calamity.
Read what Mark of BRAWM has to say:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/one-more-ocd-question.2012-04-17#c...
Very low danger
Why does one of our expert hosts of this forum say that it is "Very low danger" if it is certain that it is an imminent calamity?
Ok, so I read the back and
Ok, so I read the back and forth here...
Mr. Physics Professor has once again been given some good, constructive advice regarding the overuse of insults and hyperbole to make his points.
How does he receive the constructive criticisms? With more insults, hyperbole and BOLDED WORDS.
Sir, humility is a virtue. Take the criticism and learn from it.
Seriously. You alienate those you try to persuade with overreaction to any and all posts that are even vaguely perceived by you as "anti nuke".
Just debate. No need for hysterics.
Thank you for listening.