Re: Blog Post by Dr. Brownstein

[Guest guest]

Is there a way to take this to the OT list???

If the info is directly related to my taking care of my thyroid

today, I appreciate the information... but it seems that it has

become a soapbox for going on about many other aspects of the

radiation possibilities and a lot of other info I am not looking for

at this moment....

thanks,

On 3/13/2011 9:43 PM, Pamela wrote:

Chernobyl was a wholesale meltdown - rated 7 on the

International Nuclear event Scale (which rates events from

0-7. Chernobyl was the only level 7 event to occur in

history. Description of a level 7 event:

Impact on People and Environment

Major release of radio­active ­material with widespread

health and environmental effects r­equiring implementation

of planned and extended ­countermeasures

The only accident:

* Chernobyl disaster, 26 April 1986. A power surge during

a test procedure resulted in a criticality accident,

leading to a powerful steam explosion and fire that

released a significant fraction of core material into the

environment, resulting in a death toll of 56 as well as

estimated 4,000 additional cancer fatalities among people

exposed to elevated doses of radiation. As a result, the

city of Chernobyl was largely abandoned, and the larger

city of Pripyat was completely abandoned. The disaster is

the only Level 7 Event that has ever occurred.

Three Mile Island is the worst nuclear accident in the

United States. It was rated a 5 on that same scale -

Accident with wider consequences

Impact on People and Environment

Limited release of radioactive ­material likely to require

i­mplementation of some planned­ countermeasures.

Several deaths from ­radiation.

Example: Three Mile Island accident (burg, United

States), 28 March 1979. A combination of design and

operator errors caused a gradual loss of coolant, leading

to a partial meltdown. Radioactive gases were released

into the atmosphere. (NOBODY DIED from the 3 Mile accident

and there were no injuries, either).

The event in Japan has been rated 4 - Accident with Local

Consequences

Impact on People and the Environment

Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result

in implementation of planned countermeasures other than

local food controls.

At least one death from radiation.

Impact on Radiological Barriers and Control

Fuel melt or damage to fuel ­resulting in more than 0.1%

release of core inventory.

Release of significant quantities of radioactive material

within an installation with a high ­probability of

significant public exposure.

Examples:

* Sellafield (United Kingdom) – 5 incidents 1955 to

1979[3]

* SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States) – 1961,

reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three

operators.

* Saint-t Nuclear Power Plant (France) – 1980,

partial core meltdown.

* Buenos Aires (Argentina) – 1983, criticality accident

during fuel rod rearrangement killed one operator and

injured 2 others.

* Jaslovské Bohunice (Czechoslovakia) – 1977,

contamination of reactor building.

* Tokaimura nuclear accident (Japan) – 1999, three

inexperienced operators at a reprocessing facility caused

a criticality accident; two of them died.

* Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) – 2011, reactor

shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami,

failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion

(provisory rating).[4]

I don't think that Chernobyl can be used as a point of

reference for the current situation. There are too many

differences - both in the actual events as well as in the

plants themselves. In addition, 25 years have passed since

Chernobyl - technology and methods of handling nuclear

problems have undoubtedly changed since then.

>From another website: " Engel, former IAEA

inspector and Swiss nuclear engineer told Reuters Sunday

that a partial meltdown of a reactor "is not a disaster"

and that he doubted a complete meltdown is possible. And

the details of the current Japanese reactor crisis bear

little similarity to the Soviet-era meltdown at Chernobyl,

which came about through design flaws and human error

before it spread a radioactive cloud across much of Europe

and Asia 25 years ago.

Experts at the IAEA "aren't planning for the next

Chernobyl" says a mid-level Western diplomat familiar with

how the organization works. "But nor do [they] think we

are out of the woods yet. The reactors are still hot. But

this situation has no relation to Chernobyl, even though I

realize that in the popular lore, if you say `Chernobyl,'

it means 'catastrophic meltdown.' "

Key differences:

The Chernobyl Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor exploded on April

26, 1986 after inexperienced handlers took the power down

and then tried to power it up too quickly in an effort to

discover whether a 40-second power gap in the cooling

system could be bridged.

The Chernobyl reactor was new, it was undergoing tests,

and it had very little structural containment measures to

ward off a meltdown.

The Japanese reactors are a completely different design

known as Boiling Water Reactors, which are old and tested,

and have three quite elaborate systems of containment

designed to constrain radioactive leakage, points out

f Oehmen, a research scientist at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Mass. "The

third containment is designed, built, and tested for one

single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core

meltdown," he writes.

Robin Grimes, director of the Centre for Nuclear

Engineering at Imperial College London, told Reuters that

the core of the Japanese reactors may be still intact.

"After it's all cooled down, it may well still be possible

to simply remove the fuel and dispose of it in a

relatively normal procedure," said Mr. Grimes. "What's

clear, because of the incidental radiation being released

at the moment, which is significant but not overwhelming,

is that the structure of the core is probably still

intact. So it's not as bad as Three Mile Island."

Fast-evolving drama

Diplomats and scientists say the fast-evolving drama is

not clear and is filled with partial or incomplete

information – adding to the uncertainty.

Nuclear plant engineers have in recent days cooled

reactors using seawater and by "venting" the enormously

hot cores into the atmosphere.

Japanese officials say the radioactivity emitted from the

venting process is not significant enough to cause harm to

humans, a point with which Mr. Oehmen appears to agree."

>

> From: "Pamela" <prov31mom23@...>

> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 5:13 PM>

> > No significant release of radiation has occurred

- yes, they have vented

> > >radiation - but that was a controlled

release through filtering elements

> > to >decrease the impact of the radiation.

>

> In the investigation of what happened at Chernobyl,

researchers found that

> the filtering elements captured only about 25% of the

vented radiation. The

> remainder was released as vapor, which was not

captured by the filters.

>

> Lynn

>

[Guest guest]

For the opposite view:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.htmlLinnOn Mar 13, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Pamela wrote:

Chernobyl was a wholesale meltdown - rated 7 on the International Nuclear event Scale (which rates events from 0-7. Chernobyl was the only level 7 event to occur in history. Description of a level 7 event:

Impact on People and Environment

Major release of radio­active ­material with widespread health and environmental effects r­equiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures

The only accident:

* Chernobyl disaster, 26 April 1986. A power surge during a test procedure resulted in a criticality accident, leading to a powerful steam explosion and fire that released a significant fraction of core material into the environment, resulting in a death toll of 56 as well as estimated 4,000 additional cancer fatalities among people exposed to elevated doses of radiation. As a result, the city of Chernobyl was largely abandoned, and the larger city of Pripyat was completely abandoned. The disaster is the only Level 7 Event that has ever occurred.

Three Mile Island is the worst nuclear accident in the United States. It was rated a 5 on that same scale - Accident with wider consequences

Impact on People and Environment

Limited release of radioactive ­material likely to require i­mplementation of some planned­ countermeasures.

Several deaths from ­radiation.

Example: Three Mile Island accident (burg, United States), 28 March 1979. A combination of design and operator errors caused a gradual loss of coolant, leading to a partial meltdown. Radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere. (NOBODY DIED from the 3 Mile accident and there were no injuries, either).

The event in Japan has been rated 4 - Accident with Local Consequences

Impact on People and the Environment

Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls.

At least one death from radiation.

Impact on Radiological Barriers and Control

Fuel melt or damage to fuel ­resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory.

Release of significant quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high ­probability of significant public exposure.

Examples:

* Sellafield (United Kingdom) – 5 incidents 1955 to 1979[3]

* SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States) – 1961, reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three operators.

* Saint-t Nuclear Power Plant (France) – 1980, partial core meltdown.

* Buenos Aires (Argentina) – 1983, criticality accident during fuel rod rearrangement killed one operator and injured 2 others.

* Jaslovské Bohunice (Czechoslovakia) – 1977, contamination of reactor building.

* Tokaimura nuclear accident (Japan) – 1999, three inexperienced operators at a reprocessing facility caused a criticality accident; two of them died.

* Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) – 2011, reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion (provisory rating).[4]

I don't think that Chernobyl can be used as a point of reference for the current situation. There are too many differences - both in the actual events as well as in the plants themselves. In addition, 25 years have passed since Chernobyl - technology and methods of handling nuclear problems have undoubtedly changed since then.

From another website: " Engel, former IAEA inspector and Swiss nuclear engineer told Reuters Sunday that a partial meltdown of a reactor "is not a disaster" and that he doubted a complete meltdown is possible. And the details of the current Japanese reactor crisis bear little similarity to the Soviet-era meltdown at Chernobyl, which came about through design flaws and human error before it spread a radioactive cloud across much of Europe and Asia 25 years ago.

Experts at the IAEA "aren't planning for the next Chernobyl" says a mid-level Western diplomat familiar with how the organization works. "But nor do [they] think we are out of the woods yet. The reactors are still hot. But this situation has no relation to Chernobyl, even though I realize that in the popular lore, if you say `Chernobyl,' it means 'catastrophic meltdown.' "

Key differences:

The Chernobyl Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor exploded on April 26, 1986 after inexperienced handlers took the power down and then tried to power it up too quickly in an effort to discover whether a 40-second power gap in the cooling system could be bridged.

The Chernobyl reactor was new, it was undergoing tests, and it had very little structural containment measures to ward off a meltdown.

The Japanese reactors are a completely different design known as Boiling Water Reactors, which are old and tested, and have three quite elaborate systems of containment designed to constrain radioactive leakage, points out f Oehmen, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Mass. "The third containment is designed, built, and tested for one single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown," he writes.

Robin Grimes, director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London, told Reuters that the core of the Japanese reactors may be still intact.

"After it's all cooled down, it may well still be possible to simply remove the fuel and dispose of it in a relatively normal procedure," said Mr. Grimes. "What's clear, because of the incidental radiation being released at the moment, which is significant but not overwhelming, is that the structure of the core is probably still intact. So it's not as bad as Three Mile Island."

Fast-evolving drama

Diplomats and scientists say the fast-evolving drama is not clear and is filled with partial or incomplete information – adding to the uncertainty.

Nuclear plant engineers have in recent days cooled reactors using seawater and by "venting" the enormously hot cores into the atmosphere.

Japanese officials say the radioactivity emitted from the venting process is not significant enough to cause harm to humans, a point with which Mr. Oehmen appears to agree."

>

> From: "Pamela" <prov31mom23@...>

> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 5:13 PM>

> > No significant release of radiation has occurred - yes, they have vented

> > >radiation - but that was a controlled release through filtering elements

> > to >decrease the impact of the radiation.

>

> In the investigation of what happened at Chernobyl, researchers found that

> the filtering elements captured only about 25% of the vented radiation. The

> remainder was released as vapor, which was not captured by the filters.

>

> Lynn

>

[Guest guest]

Just move it to IodineOT/

Buist,ND

Re: Re: Blog Post by Dr. Brownstein

Is there a way to take this to the OT list??? If the info is directly related to my taking care of my thyroid today, I appreciate the information... but it seems that it has become a soapbox for going on about many other aspects of the radiation possibilities and a lot of other info I am not looking for at this moment....thanks,On 3/13/2011 9:43 PM, Pamela wrote:

Chernobyl was a wholesale meltdown - rated 7 on the International Nuclear event Scale (which rates events from 0-7. Chernobyl was the only level 7 event to occur in history. Description of a level 7 event: Impact on People and EnvironmentMajor release of radio­active ­material with widespread health and environmental effects r­equiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasuresThe only accident:* Chernobyl disaster, 26 April 1986. A power surge during a test procedure resulted in a criticality accident, leading to a powerful steam explosion and fire that released a significant fraction of core material into the environment, resulting in a death toll of 56 as well as estimated 4,000 additional cancer fatalities among people exposed to elevated doses of radiation. As a result, the city of Chernobyl was largely abandoned, and the larger city of Pripyat was completely abandoned. The disaster is the only Level 7 Event that has ever occurred.Three Mile Island is the worst nuclear accident in the United States. It was rated a 5 on that same scale - Accident with wider consequencesImpact on People and EnvironmentLimited release of radioactive ­material likely to require i­mplementation of some planned­ countermeasures.Several deaths from ­radiation.Example: Three Mile Island accident (burg, United States), 28 March 1979. A combination of design and operator errors caused a gradual loss of coolant, leading to a partial meltdown. Radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere. (NOBODY DIED from the 3 Mile accident and there were no injuries, either).The event in Japan has been rated 4 - Accident with Local ConsequencesImpact on People and the EnvironmentMinor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls.At least one death from radiation.Impact on Radiological Barriers and ControlFuel melt or damage to fuel ­resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory.Release of significant quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high ­probability of significant public exposure.Examples:* Sellafield (United Kingdom) – 5 incidents 1955 to 1979[3]* SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States) – 1961, reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three operators.* Saint-t Nuclear Power Plant (France) – 1980, partial core meltdown.* Buenos Aires (Argentina) – 1983, criticality accident during fuel rod rearrangement killed one operator and injured 2 others.* Jaslovské Bohunice (Czechoslovakia) – 1977, contamination of reactor building.* Tokaimura nuclear accident (Japan) – 1999, three inexperienced operators at a reprocessing facility caused a criticality accident; two of them died.* Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) – 2011, reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion (provisory rating).[4]I don't think that Chernobyl can be used as a point of reference for the current situation. There are too many differences - both in the actual events as well as in the plants themselves. In addition, 25 years have passed since Chernobyl - technology and methods of handling nuclear problems have undoubtedly changed since then.>From another website: " Engel, former IAEA inspector and Swiss nuclear engineer told Reuters Sunday that a partial meltdown of a reactor "is not a disaster" and that he doubted a complete meltdown is possible. And the details of the current Japanese reactor crisis bear little similarity to the Soviet-era meltdown at Chernobyl, which came about through design flaws and human error before it spread a radioactive cloud across much of Europe and Asia 25 years ago.Experts at the IAEA "aren't planning for the next Chernobyl" says a mid-level Western diplomat familiar with how the organization works. "But nor do [they] think we are out of the woods yet. The reactors are still hot. But this situation has no relation to Chernobyl, even though I realize that in the popular lore, if you say `Chernobyl,' it means 'catastrophic meltdown.' "Key differences:The Chernobyl Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor exploded on April 26, 1986 after inexperienced handlers took the power down and then tried to power it up too quickly in an effort to discover whether a 40-second power gap in the cooling system could be bridged.The Chernobyl reactor was new, it was undergoing tests, and it had very little structural containment measures to ward off a meltdown.The Japanese reactors are a completely different design known as Boiling Water Reactors, which are old and tested, and have three quite elaborate systems of containment designed to constrain radioactive leakage, points out f Oehmen, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Mass. "The third containment is designed, built, and tested for one single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown," he writes.Robin Grimes, director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London, told Reuters that the core of the Japanese reactors may be still intact."After it's all cooled down, it may well still be possible to simply remove the fuel and dispose of it in a relatively normal procedure," said Mr. Grimes. "What's clear, because of the incidental radiation being released at the moment, which is significant but not overwhelming, is that the structure of the core is probably still intact. So it's not as bad as Three Mile Island."Fast-evolving dramaDiplomats and scientists say the fast-evolving drama is not clear and is filled with partial or incomplete information – adding to the uncertainty.Nuclear plant engineers have in recent days cooled reactors using seawater and by "venting" the enormously hot cores into the atmosphere.Japanese officials say the radioactivity emitted from the venting process is not significant enough to cause harm to humans, a point with which Mr. Oehmen appears to agree.">> From: "Pamela" <prov31mom23@...>> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 5:13 PM>> > No significant release of radiation has occurred - yes, they have vented > > >radiation - but that was a controlled release through filtering elements > > to >decrease the impact of the radiation.> > In the investigation of what happened at Chernobyl, researchers found that > the filtering elements captured only about 25% of the vented radiation. The > remainder was released as vapor, which was not captured by the filters.> > Lynn>

[Guest guest]

The Fukushima reactors were built in 1971 and designed for a 25 year life span. They were already scheduled to be decommissioned shortly. They have accumulated 40 years of plutonium, making them much more dangerous if containment is breached. Three Mile Island had run for only three months; therefore it didn't have much plutonium accumulation, which made that accident less lethal than it was.

Pamela has tried to comfort us by saying that 25 years have passed since Chernobyl and technology and methods of handling nuclear problems have undoubtedly changed since then. Pamela, Fukushima was built 15 years before Chernobyl. It doesn't matter what has happened since Chernobyl because it doesn't change the way Fukushima was built.

Lynn

On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Pamela wrote:

Chernobyl disaster, 26 April 1986. Three Mile Island accident (burg, United States), 28 March 1979. I don't think that Chernobyl can be used as a point of reference for the current situation. There are too many differences - both in the actual events as well as in the plants themselves. In addition, 25 years have passed since Chernobyl - technology and methods of handling nuclear problems have undoubtedly changed since then.

[Guest guest]

We also have many, many reactors here in US. At least 15 built just like Fukushima reactors and of similar age. Besides being downwind, we need to also clean up our own act. Japan has asked for assistance from the US due to this and also international help according to NPR radio. They evacuated 200,000 in 10 mile radius for these plants. They were concerned about 1 and 3, but now 2 is the one with problems. There are 6 in the affected area. 

Plutonium accumulates over time and the Japanese for energy use kept 3% in these reactors when norm here is 1%. Plutonium has half life of 24,000 years and more penetration.Three Mile Island was far more lethal especially to infants than we were told. There were millions of dollar of secret settlements paid out in Pennsylvania.

The filters used were about 25% effective in recapturing steam. Still steam release is safer for most everyone than a meltdown.The steel containment buildings were built for 7.5 earthquake and they had a 9.0 earthquake which is more than ten times stronger than their design. There was design for the Tsunami factor with 23 foot waves as much 6 miles inland. We are not past this and need to keep an eye on it as a group. This is the biggest disaster since WWII for Japan and they need our prayers and help.  Pam

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Lynn McGaha <lmcgaha@...> wrote:

 

The Fukushima reactors were built in 1971 and designed for a 25 year life span.  They were already scheduled to be decommissioned shortly.  They have accumulated 40 years of plutonium, making them much more dangerous if containment is breached.  Three Mile Island had run for only three months; therefore it didn't have much plutonium accumulation, which made that accident less lethal than it was.

 

Pamela has tried to comfort us by saying that 25 years have passed since Chernobyl and technology and methods of handling nuclear problems have undoubtedly changed since then.  Pamela, Fukushima was built 15 years before Chernobyl.  It doesn't matter what has happened since Chernobyl because it doesn't change the way Fukushima was built. 

 

Lynn

 

On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Pamela wrote:

Chernobyl disaster, 26 April 1986.  Three Mile Island accident (burg, United States), 28 March 1979. I don't think that Chernobyl can be used as a point of reference for the current situation. There are too many differences - both in the actual events as well as in the plants themselves. In addition, 25 years have passed since Chernobyl - technology and methods of handling nuclear problems have undoubtedly changed since then.

[Guest guest]

The radiation releases go through a filter, and the filters capture about 25% of the radioactivity that is vented. The filters do not capture any of the vaporized radioactivity, just particulate matter, and the Chernobyl experience showed that 75% of the radioactivity was in vapor form. I believe it is incorrect to say the filters capture any steam.

I do agree that these radiation releases are by far safer than a meltdown.

Lynn

Pamela wrote

The filters used were about 25% effective in recapturing steam. Still steam release is safer for most everyone than a meltdown.