Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 23, 2018 11:51 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 29, 2013 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/ ... p=trending

Here is a classic example of the kind of ignorance we are facing, folks. And this is from Fox News, my favorite TV news channel. Their main news program Special Report is my main source of TV news. Actually this report is far from the worst you'll find about Fukushima. It is written in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it could still turn into a major disaster (in the sense of actually killing a large number of people). That is all the alarmists need to peddle their ridiculous alarmism.

The whole notion that someone in California should worry about the Fukushima radiation strikes me as beyond absurd. But the very fact that it is even brought up for serious discussion plays into the irrational fear of radiation from nuclear power plants. After all, no one is writing articles warning about coal emissions from China killing anyone in California, right? Do you see what is going on, folks? I'm afraid we are losing the battle against anti-nuclear ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 29, 2013 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
At least the report includes an observer claiming no harmful levels of radiation only one to two miles out from the reactor site.

But I guess after traveling across the Pacific Ocean somehow those highly diluted nuclei are going to congregate against all odds, and meet up on the coast of California and try to assault a fish -- an amazingly improbable gathering, and an embarrassing moment for thermodynamics. Sort of makes the migration of butterflies and whales over long distances seem tame.

It makes you want to be there on the beach just to see the day when all those little nuclei arrive. Will there be an official morning ceremony? If any 213-Bismuth arrives, I request first claim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 29, 2013 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
213 bismuth? Decay chain from 241Pu or 237Np? Why this one?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 29, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
alpha emitter -- pretty much all decayed during the age of the earth. So there is really not any around, so to speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2013 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
With a half-life of 45 minutes and in the 241Pu->237Np->233U chain I would guess there is precious little in the world. Any that exists must come from deliberately irradiated sources. You would have to count atoms to measure how much is in spent fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2013 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
FUKUSHIMA,And The End of Humanity.Michio Kaku

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STSmFZeE50E&app=desktop

Just when you think it can't get any worse.

You NEED to watch this, folks, if you want to understand what we are up against.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2013 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Russ wrote:
FUKUSHIMA,And The End of Humanity.Michio Kaku.


I used to like that guy. Now all I can think is... what a maroon!!!

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&t ... &cid=94989

http://www.voicebase.com/voice_file/pub ... ail/393063

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2013 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5044
I never liked Kaku's nonsense.

I mean, come on. Multiverses? Parallel universes?

Then there's his talk about how we shouldn't use nuclear warheads to blast asteroids out of their course because of... the radiation! Oh yes, much safer to just let that 10 mile astorid wham into the earth, huh? Never mind the fact that there have been many nuclear bomb tests with very limited and only local effects.

With physicists like that, nuclear energy doesn't need enemies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
KitemanSA wrote:


According to this audio interview, Fukushima will raise the ocean radioactivity level near the US west coast by 1/1000th of the natural level of radioactivity that is already in the ocean. Is that even measurable? Is the natural radioactivity level so stable that a 0.1% change can be reliably detected? I would guess that the natural variability would be greater than that. Or is it the concentration of specific radioactive elements that allows us to determine that it came from Fukushima?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2013 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
It is the radiation spectra or signature that might be measurable. If you got desperate, if you could bind nuclei in certain gaseous molecules and do laser Raman Spectroscopy, you could easily tell differences in isotope masses because you can detect even an additional neutron easily and quickly. Probably not the best choice to try, however. Other than natural radiation spectra you could use inelastic neutron activation spectroscopy on samples to measure isotope ratios. The problem is the trace amounts. You would likely need to have a special party and invite only isotopes of Reactor Origin.

I would think the solar flares emit more variable radiation than this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 01, 2013 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 15, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 186
Cyril R wrote:
I mean, come on. Multiverses? Parallel universes?

Hmmm? You seem to be confusing two entirely separate things, and seem to be overselling his commitment to both AFAIK.

The many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics is a common one. It's not specific to him, and it's not specific to cosmology. Furthermore, the apparent absurdity of many-worlds is not specific to many-worlds. All attempts at explaining quantum theory are equally implausible. Remember that Schrodinger's Cat was initially proposed to demonstrate the apparent absurdity of quantum mechanics.

An entirely separate thing is the multiverse hypothesis of inflationary cosmology. This hypothesis is also pretty common and not specific to this guy. Also, of course every cosmologist, that guy included, would be the first to tell you that at this point it's just a guess with little to no evidence behind it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 2:55 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
These Fukushima alarmist stories seem to be coming up more and more frequently all the time now. And they are not limited to fringe leftist sites. What I find really alarming is that, based on reader comments, the vast majority of readers seem to buy into the anti-nuclear mythology. The steady drumbeat of these stories is poisoning millions of minds against nuclear power.

If nuclear power is to stand a chance of a resurgence, something needs to be done to counter these stories in near real time. We need a website that is dedicated to tracking these bogus stories and debunking them within a few days of their publication on the web. We need nuclear experts to debunk the anti-nuclear lies and distortions, and we need to encourage as many people as possible to post links in the comments sections of all these bogus anti-nuclear stories.

We need both nuclear experts and web experts. Who with those skills would be willing to volunteer time on something like that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 02, 2013 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
rc1111 wrote:
At least the report includes an observer claiming no harmful levels of radiation only one to two miles out from the reactor site.

But I guess after traveling across the Pacific Ocean somehow those highly diluted nuclei are going to congregate against all odds, and meet up on the coast of California and try to assault a fish -- an amazingly improbable gathering, and an embarrassing moment for thermodynamics. Sort of makes the migration of butterflies and whales over long distances seem tame.

It makes you want to be there on the beach just to see the day when all those little nuclei arrive. Will there be an official morning ceremony? If any 213-Bismuth arrives, I request first claim.


Here's the monitoring data from off of Fukushima for October of 2013, as you mention the radiation is at safe levels even very close to the plant.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/201 ... 291013.pdf

There's already several billion tons of uranium in the oceans plus all the decay products and other naturally occurring radionuclides, so it's seems very doubtful that the relatively tiny amounts of material entering the Pacific from Fukushima will having any real impact even very close to the source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 13, 2013 3:36 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Here we go again:

RADIATION ALERTS HIT U.S. CITIES
Fukishima cited as suspected source of increasing threat

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/radiation-al ... -s-cities/

As usual, the reader comments show that the vast majority of readers swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker.

These articles and the reactions to them are discouraging. Are we just losing the war, or have we already lost the war against public ignorance about nuclear power?

Any comments on the technical accuracy of this article?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 13, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Russ wrote:
Here we go again:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/radiation-al ... -s-cities/

Any comments on the technical accuracy of this article?
The map is interactive, at least the last one I saw was. I looked at Fukushima. All the areas around Fukushima were showing green (low). Many in remote areas of Japan were showing red (medium) or black (high). Since that makes no sense, I suspect their map is wrong or it doesn't actually show what the articles suggest it does.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group