Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-16-2011, 10:42 PM   #181
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Montana
Posts: 2,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post


According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".
(BigNick earlier wrote that Gundersen's statements about "hot particles" was too vague and that the size of the particles would need to be known - the above statement is clearer about the source and size ("microns") though still a bit vague, but I suppose those who have the means to measure them, aren't inclined to publish more info than obligatory)
My bold.

Well, I'm not a nuclear physicist or a nuclear submariner or a nuclear anything, but I do have a scientific background (Chemistry). I have no idea what of micron of any element would be (since micron is a measure of length, ie. one dimension) and atoms tend to be a bit smaller than that as well as three dimensional. I'd understand micro-gram (a measure of weight mass), millicurie (a measure of radioactivity) but microns of something?

Unless Gundersen was misquoted, that alone would make me question his credibility.
__________________

__________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data and ..
kumquat is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-16-2011, 11:02 PM   #182
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
I have no idea what of micron of any element would be (since micron is a measure of length, ie. one dimension) and atoms tend to be a bit smaller than that as well as three dimensional.
It refers to the size of the particles referred to in the very next sentence, not atoms -- not so hard to understand, I think, even for a chemist.
__________________

__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:08 PM   #183
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Montana
Posts: 2,753
It's extremely hard for a chemist to understand what the actual amount of matter in a "microns" particle is, a one dimensional particle?. Please enlighten me.

I am not a chemist. I simply have a degree in Chemistry.
__________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data and ..
kumquat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:14 PM   #184
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
It refers to the size of the particles referred to in the very next sentence, not atoms -- not so hard to understand, I think, even for a chemist.
No, especially for a chemist someone with a degree in Chemistry. He's looking for technically meaningful words. After all, this whole nuclear thing is quite technical.

So, saying that you have 'microns' of something, would be like saying you have 'meters' of water. What would that mean exactly? You could say you have a liter of water, or a kilogram of water, or a cubic centimeter of water. Those would all have meaning. To get more precise, you would need to specify temperature, but you'd be close as long as it was 'water' (not ice or steam).

But a meter of water? What does that tell me?

More importantly - I wonder if Tigger is 'getting it' as this thread goes on? We have people on this forum who are well versed in this area, and they aren't sending up doomsday scenarios. Sure there are concerns, but if we were on the edge of the collapse of civilization as we know it (OK, a little hyperbole from me), I would expect Nords, M Paquette and Gumby to be the first ones to be getting their families into fall-out shelters. But we don't hear that kind of talk from them. That speaks volumes to me.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:32 PM   #185
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
...I would expect Nords, M Paquette and Gumby to be the first ones to be getting their families into fall-out shelters. But we don't hear that kind of talk from them. That speaks volumes to me.
I'm too busy enjoying my deadly carcinogenic espresso to bother with that.

I'll worry about much higher probability accidents, like getting smooshed by an asteroid, or being poisoned by all the radioactive fallout downwind of a coal-fired power plant. (Yeah. Radioactive fallout. From a coal plant. Look it up.)
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:38 PM   #186
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
So, saying that you have 'microns' of something, would be like saying you have 'meters' of water. What would that mean exactly?
In context, "micron" obviously refers to the linear dimension of the "hot particles" of the next sentence. Didn't I just say that? The particles are evidently small bits of matter, dust, and they were discussed earlier in the thread. I myself gave a reference to an interview with a scientist (a grad student) currently engaged in collecting and measuring them. A small particle of dust, around a micron in size, which has some radioactive material in it, is not a terribly difficult concept to grasp. Come on, guys. Do you really think that all that needs to be done to discredit Gundersen is to pretend you can't understand what he's saying?
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:25 AM   #187
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Montana
Posts: 2,753
If your wife told you she wanted to buy a particle a couple of million microns long, nearly a million microns wide and several thousand microns deep that contained uranium, was radioactive and potentially gave off radon gas would you know what she was talking about. Should be simple, right?

What I've described is a granite counter top. Other than the number of microns, how does that description differ from:
Quote:
A small particle of dust, around a micron in size, which has some radioactive material in it
Is either dangerous? The answer is, "it depends" and the things it depends on need a better description than "hot particles", after all the counter top is just a big honkin "hot particle". Gundersen, as someone with a scientific background, would know that. Unless he was misquoted, that would make me question his credibility.
__________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data and ..
kumquat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 01:47 AM   #188
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
A German organic farm appears to have killed 35 people and permanently destroyed the health of many more.
If you are only judging the safety of something based on fatalities, these kinds of comparisons are intriguing. Or compare to deaths by automobile. But as far as I know nuclear power plants stand alone in their ability to contaminate wide areas in case of catastrophic failure. Last I heard all inhabitants for 20km in all directions from the plant were evacuated. There is no timeline yet for their return (if ever) and there is talk about extending the zone. Also as I understand it, radioactive contamination can spread over wide areas and potentially impact many more people over an extended period of time than chemical spills. I don't think it's an accurate comparison to just count direct fatalities.
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 03:11 AM   #189
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
The answer is, "it depends" and the things it depends on need a better description than "hot particles", after all the counter top is just a big honkin "hot particle". Gundersen, as someone with a scientific background, would know that.
Well, it's easier to breathe in a dust particle than a counter top, I reckon, and easier for the dust particle to be transported by the wind from Japan than it is for a counter top to be. Do I need a scientific background to figure that out?
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 10:24 AM   #190
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
A small particle of dust, around a micron in size, which has some radioactive material in it, is not a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
Indeed. But what we were told is:
Quote:
According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes.
That clearly implies that the "microns" are solid bits of (presumably the nastier radioactive) isotopes of those elements. Had he said "micron-sized dust particles containing radioactive Cs/Sr/Pu", and perhaps given us an idea of the percentage of each speck which was thus contaminated, we might have something to go on. But all this conveys to me is "tiny package of pure evil", which might go down well at a hustings but is not how science works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Come on, guys. Do you really think that all that needs to be done to discredit Gundersen is to pretend you can't understand what he's saying?
If he is literally saying "microns of isotopes" then he immediately discredits himself absolutely. You can't just throw science-y sounding words like "microns" and "isotopes" around and hope that they make sense. I hope for his reputation's sake that he's being misquoted.
__________________
Age 56, retired July 1, 2012; DW is 60 and working for 2 more years. Current portfolio is 2000K split 50 stocks/20 bonds/30 cash. Renting house, no debts.
BigNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 01:15 PM   #191
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by growing_older View Post
But as far as I know nuclear power plants stand alone in their ability to contaminate wide areas in case of catastrophic failure.
A coal-fired plant doesn't need to wait for a catastrophic failure, it's busily contaminating the atmosphere whenever it is running. They build the smokestacks tall on those things just so they spread the contaminants over a wider area: it produces fewer numbers of serious/acute problems, but a larger number of people are impacted. 24/7, no need for a tsunami.

And when a hydroelectric dam catastrophically fails, it can kill many folks. Heck, 75 folks died two years ago when a turbine failed at in a Russian hydroelectric plant and the dam was barely affected. Between 90,000 and 230,000 Chinese died from a failure of the Banqiao dam. I guess folks can quibble about the term "contaminate" but I'd bet those scores of thousands of people killed would consider H2O every bit as deadly as Cs. And if given a choice to live downstream of a dam or downwind of a nuclear plant, I think I know how they'd vote. If they could.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 04:28 PM   #192
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Hey can we talk about how vaccines are causing autism.

At least it would give us an excuse to post pictures of this hottie

__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 06:41 PM   #193
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger
In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.
You might want to check these claims on your own to see what sort of peer-reviewed journal they're appearing in. Apparently they managed to sneak past whatever passes for editorial review.
I tracked down this publication. It is more of a 'games with statistics and small samples' than anything real. The 'pre-Fukushima accident' sample of morbidity and mortality in infants was drawn from a 4 week period ending March 19, 2011. The 'post-Fukushima' sample was drawn from a 10 week period ending May 28, 2011. Mortality and morbidity were reported by Dr. Sherman to 4 significant places. [1]

Note that while Dr. Sherman reports the variation as being statistically significant, the CDC data[2] the numbers are drawn from routinely shows similar levels of variability. Further, when equal lengths of time are reviewed, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the contamination reached the West Coast, infant mortality in the West Coast cities are effectively the same for both periods, 129 deaths in the 10 weeks prior and 125 deaths in the 10 weeks after.

One might as well ask what there is in the contamination that lowered the infant mortality rate 'significantly' from the mean in the four weeks prior to it's arrival.

1. Janette Sherman / Joseph Mangano: Is the Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?, published June 10-12 2011, sampled June 17, 2011.

2. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, data for Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley. CDC WONDER
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 09:31 PM   #194
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Montana
Posts: 2,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post

You can't just throw science-y sounding words like "microns" and "isotopes" around and hope that they make sense.
It seems you can, even if you shouldn't be able to. Read the previous posts and see if anyone drinks the cool-aid.
__________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data and ..
kumquat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:49 PM   #195
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post
"tiny package of pure evil"
Whaaaat? Tiny packages of pure evil! This sounds like a job for some sort of evil delivery company. I really ought to do something, but I am already in my pajamas.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 12:07 AM   #196
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
I tracked down this publication. It is more of a 'games with statistics and small samples' than anything real. The 'pre-Fukushima accident' sample of morbidity and mortality in infants was drawn from a 4 week period ending March 19, 2011. The 'post-Fukushima' sample was drawn from a 10 week period ending May 28, 2011. Mortality and morbidity were reported by Dr. Sherman to 4 significant places. [1]

Note that while Dr. Sherman reports the variation as being statistically significant, the CDC data[2] the numbers are drawn from routinely shows similar levels of variability. Further, when equal lengths of time are reviewed, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the contamination reached the West Coast, infant mortality in the West Coast cities are effectively the same for both periods, 129 deaths in the 10 weeks prior and 125 deaths in the 10 weeks after.

One might as well ask what there is in the contamination that lowered the infant mortality rate 'significantly' from the mean in the four weeks prior to it's arrival.

1. Janette Sherman / Joseph Mangano: Is the Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?, published June 10-12 2011, sampled June 17, 2011.

2. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, data for Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley. CDC WONDER
Checkmate. Well done. Maybe Tigger will kindly re-post your observations at the same place the original snippet was found.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 03:55 PM   #197
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I wonder if Tigger is 'getting it' as this thread goes on? We have people on this forum who are well versed in this area, and they aren't sending up doomsday scenarios. Sure there are concerns, but if we were on the edge of the collapse of civilization as we know it (OK, a little hyperbole from me), I would expect Nords, M Paquette and Gumby to be the first ones to be getting their families into fall-out shelters. But we don't hear that kind of talk from them. That speaks volumes to me.
Bill Gates is well versed in all things Microsoft and yet we don't hear him criticise their business practices. That speaks volumes to me.
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 04:00 PM   #198
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Note that while Dr. Sherman reports the variation as being statistically significant, the CDC data[2] the numbers are drawn from routinely shows similar levels of variability. Further, when equal lengths of time are reviewed, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the contamination reached the West Coast, infant mortality in the West Coast cities are effectively the same for both periods, 129 deaths in the 10 weeks prior and 125 deaths in the 10 weeks after.
Thank you, very interesting! So much for that alarming "fact".

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Maybe Tigger will kindly re-post your observations at the same place the original snippet was found.
I have nothing against doing that and this time I highly appreciate M Paquette's observations.

P.S. I'm now wrestling with the CDC site...
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 04:22 PM   #199
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
Bill Gates is well versed in all things Microsoft and yet we don't hear him criticise their business practices. That speaks volumes to me.
Bill Gates owes his current fortune to his ownership interest in Microsoft. My nuclear days are 22 years in the past and I have not had any vested interest in the industry since. Early in the course of the Fukushima incident, to help people understand the situation, I posted here to the best of my ability to interpret the information being reported. You should not draw any conclusions from the fact either that I did or did not post in response to any of yours. I may agree with you, I may not. I may have been too busy. To assume that I or anyone else would whitewash the situation is unwarranted.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 04:33 PM   #200
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger
P.S. I'm now wrestling with the CDC site...
Yeah. They don't make it easy, do they?

At least you don't have to work up a request list, mail it to them, wait for the estimated cost, cut a check, and in a few months sign for the delivery of what turns out to be an incorrect and useless data set.

These days we have computers to help us mess up in real time.
__________________

__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nuclear power stocks or funds Sam FIRE and Money 7 09-05-2009 04:56 PM
Nuclear Blowhard ScooterGuy Other topics 6 12-09-2008 07:39 PM
Nuclear Energy..........why not?? FinanceDude Other topics 60 11-19-2007 11:18 AM
Nuclear power plant I am a dope newguy88 FIRE and Money 33 08-16-2006 04:07 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.