If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Proud Mary wrote ...
The US Navy knew: Fukushima's 'hard rain' on USS Ronald Reagan - News - The Ecologist
The idea that a modern warship wouldn't be immediately aware of a major radiation hazard on its own decks is so silly that you wouldn't think a Freedom of Information access request would be needed to prove it. Lawyers, politicians, and their media enablers, live in a different world where whatever they say is true.
so if i remember right, from the 90's watching the history and science channels, in 50's the US Navy had huge problems with contamination. They went to great lenghts to wash it all off. but doesnt the presence of isotopes from weapons or cores, sitting on the surface of steel eventually cuase nickel, moly and chromium to turn radioactive? in which case you cant just wash it off, right?
and if i understand the above correctly, isnt it neutron emitters that are really the problem? and if reason serves, isnt it important to avoid the plume, and push over the side-aircraft that have found it?
Its just stunning the Navy wouldnt take better care of a 4,300M$ ship, and 5,500 sailors.
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
Patrick wrote ...
Proud Mary wrote ...
The US Navy knew: Fukushima's 'hard rain' on USS Ronald Reagan - News - The Ecologist
The idea that a modern warship wouldn't be immediately aware of a major radiation hazard on its own decks is so silly that you wouldn't think a Freedom of Information access request would be needed to prove it. Lawyers, politicians, and their media enablers, live in a different world where whatever they say is true.
so if i remember right, from the 90's watching the history and science channels, in 50's the US Navy had huge problems with contamination. They went to great lenghts to wash it all off. but doesnt the presence of isotopes from weapons or cores, sitting on the surface of steel eventually cuase nickel, moly and chromium to turn radioactive? in which case you cant just wash it off, right?
and if i understand the above correctly, isnt it neutron emitters that are really the problem? and if reason serves, isnt it important to avoid the plume, and push over the side-aircraft that have found it?
Its just stunning the Navy wouldnt take better care of a 4,300M$ ship, and 5,500 sailors.
According to one source: "Cooper said the Reagan has a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system, but the crew couldn’t get it activated quickly enough."
Registered Member #193
Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022
Patrick wrote ...
this is a scary pic.
Very scary picture, and misleading. The bulk of that plume is roughly 100 bq/m^3 of whatever it is they are measuring (it would be better science if they specified that). Normal sea water contains about 400ppm of potassium That's 400 g/m3 Each gram gives a natural background of about 30Bq so that's a background of 12000 bq/ m3 In a real picture you simply wouldn't be able to see the (less than 1%) change from the background radioactivity . If you were swimming in that sea you would be at roughly 1% increased risk from the radiation, compared to the background.
People, on the other hand, contain rather more potassium than sea water (about 1500 ppm vs about 400) so you are more radioactive than sea water by a factor of roughly 4 . That "contaminated" water is more radioactive by a factor of about 1.01
Does that put this risk in context for you? How about this? Normal human urine contains about 25 to 125mMol/liter of potassium. call it 100mMol to keep the arithmetic simple. That's a tenth of a mole in each litre or 4000 mg / litre. That 4 grams per litre in turn will give rise to 4*30 i.e 120 Bq. And if you amassed a cubic metre of it, you would have 120000 Bq of radiation from potassium (there are other contributors too) And that big scary splodge on the picture depicts 100 Bq/m3
It's a thousand fold less radioactive than piddle. Why are people making a fuss about it?
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
Bored Chemist wrote ...
Patrick wrote ...
this is a scary pic.
Very scary picture, and misleading. The bulk of that plume is roughly 100 bq/m^3 of whatever it is they are measuring (it would be better science if they specified that). Normal sea water contains about 400ppm of potassium That's 400 g/m3 Each gram gives a natural background of about 30Bq so that's a background of 12000 bq/ m3 In a real picture you simply wouldn't be able to see the (less than 1%) change from the background radioactivity . If you were swimming in that sea you would be at roughly 1% increased risk from the radiation, compared to the background.
People, on the other hand, contain rather more potassium than sea water (about 1500 ppm vs about 400) so you are more radioactive than sea water by a factor of roughly 4 . That "contaminated" water is more radioactive by a factor of about 1.01
Does that put this risk in context for you? How about this? Normal human urine contains about 25 to 125mMol/liter of potassium. call it 100mMol to keep the arithmetic simple. That's a tenth of a mole in each litre or 4000 mg / litre. That 4 grams per litre in turn will give rise to 4*30 i.e 120 Bq. And if you amassed a cubic metre of it, you would have 120000 Bq of radiation from potassium (there are other contributors too) And that big scary splodge on the picture depicts 100 Bq/m3
It's a thousand fold less radioactive than piddle. Why are people making a fuss about it?
It sounds like potassium pretty much passes straight through the human body, BC. How do other radioactive isotopes compare?
As I understand it, put simply, the various isotopes in the Pacific off Fukushima attach themselves to algae at the bottom of the food chain, and get more concentrated higher up the food chain, with blue fin tuna at the top. The impression I get is that they don't all pass through the body as easily as potassium does.
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
Yes, radioactive pollution can become locally magnified by concentration in some species in the food chain, and by selective accumulatation in certain organs of the human body - for example, radio-iodine in the thyroid gland, and radio-strontium in the bones, both of which represent an especial danger to growing children.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Fukushima
