Nice Powerpointengineering*. Maybe a tad too optimistic?Mjolnir wrote:Radioactivity measurements in easily machine-usable form: http://www.dailyack.com/2011/03/radioac ... japan.html
*yes, i know. He´s an Apple-guy. I chose my words carefully.
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Nice Powerpointengineering*. Maybe a tad too optimistic?Mjolnir wrote:Radioactivity measurements in easily machine-usable form: http://www.dailyack.com/2011/03/radioac ... japan.html
This statement of yours surprises me. I had the impression that you´re a quite logical thinking human being.Mjolnir wrote:I'm not sure how a CSV file of numeric measurements is either optimistic or "Powerpoint engineering".
...I'm still not sure if you're even serious or just pulling my leg. A CSV file with numeric measurements is Powerpoint engineering, while a series of slides isn't? Are we thinking of the same Powerpoint?
Well, the CSV file potentially has transcription/conversion errors, but the original sources are available. The slides are from a guy claiming a second Chernobyl from data that he has access to but hasn't published, nor has he given details of his analysis. Given the actual measurements around Fukushima and the rest of Japan, the Chernobyl comparison automatically gets him a rejection.Trantor wrote:So, on the one side some random wannabedude relying on questionable official TEPCO-"data". Stating something retarded* like "I think everyone should take a deep breath, step back, and look at the evidence which is suggesting that this is not another Chernobyl in the making. It's may not even be another Three Mile Island."
On the other side Dr. Gerhard Wotawa from the austrian Institute of Meteorology and Geodynamics, with international reputation. And direct access to CTBTO-data. Stating that alone in the first three days the amount auf released radioactivity was between 20 and 60 percent of Chernobyl (That alone would make FuckUpShima INES 7).
Now, who to believe? 8-)
You're some guy on the internet with a Geiger counter, an instrument that takes training and a great deal of care in usage to produce accurate measurements, measuring levels that are essentially at background, far below background in much of the world. You've given little detail of your equipment and procedure, and the units you gave for your measurements aren't even complete. (0.3 µSv accumulated over what period of time?)Trantor wrote:And, BTW, a little ontopic (if somebody is still interested): Since the first (heavily diluted) parts of the plume reached northern germany, my geiger counter shows some interesting spikes up to 0,3microsievert. Normally it idles around 0,04 without spikes.
Saying to calm down and look at the evidence is disappointing and unscientific?Trantor wrote:* Yes, retarded. And very disappointing from someone who calls himself "Scientist". A real Scientist would never state such a dumb comment on a process still in the making.
Not sure half-assed is the right description here. These 30-40 year old reactors took ground accelerations considerably above their design values and shut down cleanly, and then got swamped by a tsunami that was more than twice as high as the largest they expected to receive. They should probably keep doing whatever they're doing to earthquake-proof the things (it obviously works), and just assume tsunamis will get over the walls and design to withstand that (keep the building with the generators/pumps from flooding during the relatively short period of inundation). And install passive or independently powered emergency ventilation in those buildings! (That's something TEPCO might be directly to blame for...I think such vents were a later manufacturer-recommended modification, which TEPCO may not have ever installed.)sunphoenix wrote:I feel nuclear power is indeed a grand future for clean energy for mankind... IF they STOP cutting corners when making these plants and build them right! They need to be showing proper respect for how dangerous nuclear energy is and stop doing things 'half-assed'!
The only inherent safe type of NPP would be the sun.sunphoenix wrote:I feel nuclear power is indeed a grand future for clean energy for mankind... IF they STOP cutting corners when making these plants and build them right! They need to be showing proper respect for how dangerous nuclear energy is and stop doing things 'half-assed'!
Yes, but you´re obviously not getting the point. Hint: "Powerpointengineer" is a derogative word.Mjolnir wrote:...I'm still not sure if you're even serious or just pulling my leg. A CSV file with numeric measurements is Powerpoint engineering, while a series of slides isn't? Are we thinking of the same Powerpoint?
...with a scientific doctors degree and leading an institute of international reputation...Mjolnir wrote:The slides are from a guy...
...because CTBTO forbids publication...Mjolnir wrote:claiming a second Chernobyl from data that he has access to but hasn't published
He has. On German. Sorry, decrying Dr. Wotawa is futile.Mjolnir wrote:nor has he given details of his analysis.
Oh, those precise, public "measurements"... Yes, yes, there is no danger for nobody, and a 12 miles evacuating zone is sufficient...Mjolnir wrote:Given the actual measurements around Fukushima and the rest of Japan, the Chernobyl comparison automatically gets him a rejection.
Your spin doesn´t work. I never claimed to be scientific. I just asked for other independent/amateur-data. That´s all i´m interested in.Mjolnir wrote:You're some guy on the internet with a Geiger counter, an instrument that takes training and a great deal of care in usage to produce accurate measurements, measuring levels that are essentially at background, far below background in much of the world. You've given little detail of your equipment and procedure, and the units you gave for your measurements aren't even complete. (0.3 µSv accumulated over what period of time?)
Do you have some urls?Mjolnir wrote:I trust the work done by the people at the University of Washington Physics department
The same IAEA that says Fuckupshima is just INES 5?Mjolnir wrote:and the IAEA a lot more than the measurements you've made.
What "evidence", when the process is still in the making?Mjolnir wrote:Saying to calm down and look at the evidence is disappointing and unscientific?Trantor wrote:* Yes, retarded. And very disappointing from someone who calls himself "Scientist". A real Scientist would never state such a dumb comment on a process still in the making.
We expect something around 50€/private Person/Year.Cdr Straker wrote:Good for you! Let us know how much your electric bill rises, M'kay?
Look, we are Umiak, err, Germans. We could bury you with capacity. Max peak consumption ever was around 85GW. Normal consumption is around 68GW.Cdr Straker wrote:Meanwhile, until your new unicorn poop-fueled generators start churning out all of that clean, renewable power, maybe you guys can buy more electricity from your neighbors....
Again just neocon-chitchat.Cdr Straker wrote:who are still using nuke-power and fossil fuels after watching the "green-energy" economy in Spain implode.
Just wait and see.Mjolnir wrote:Nobody died due to nuclear power in this incident.
See post above. Your knowledge seems not to be up-to-date.Clearly, the best course of action is to abandon the safest of the large scale power generation technologies and replace it with...well, something. You can just buy power from your neighbors and brag about dropping nuclear power in the meantime.
Awww. How come this oh-so green and supersafe energy cannot be insured?uclear is green energy...and the only green energy that can scale up to meet our energy needs.
No, sir. From the beginning on there were lies and malicious deceit from the officials.An update on the status of Fukushima: from the beginning, it was known the cores had sustained damage,
Now you see my with my jaw dropped.Combining computer simulations with measurements taken from the reactors over time and with better measurements taken more recently, it looks like the cores did worse than thought,
Lies, lies, lies and malicious deceit. There was a tsunami in the same region around 1900 with a height of 14m. And that wasn´t the only one. They simply ignored it.Keep in mind that there was no reason to expect an earthquake and tsunami of this severity,
Good luck with the next two governments who need to put that in effect. There was a "phasing out" commitment made about a decade ago for the oldest nuclear reactors in my country (by 2015 IIRC), and the current government allows extensions to the power company that owns them in return for the profit they make in keeping those reactors running after their normal lifetime is over.Trantor wrote:Sry for necroposting, but i´m delighted to announce that germanys right-wing(!)-goverment today abandonded nuclear energy.
GeoModder wrote:Good luck with the next two governments who need to put that in effect. There was a "phasing out" commitment made about a decade ago for the oldest nuclear reactors in my country (by 2015 IIRC),Trantor wrote:Sry for necroposting, but i´m delighted to announce that germanys right-wing(!)-goverment today abandonded nuclear energy.
Also same here. Our current right-wing-gov scuttled the phase-out end of last year, stirring uproar.GeoModder wrote:and the current government allows extensions to the power company that owns them in return for the profit they make in keeping those reactors running after their normal lifetime is over.
Yep. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.GeoModder wrote:If it wasn't for Fukushima back in March, only the greens would have made a ruckus about it.
Yes, i already stated that i could live with LFTRs.discord wrote:trantor: imho nuclear power is probably the safest and 'greenest' around, if people would STOP using designs(and facilities) that are like 50-60 years old.
why you ask? well simple, take the thorium cycle for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
They already do, and it´s a dirty industry. See Sellafield or La Hague.discord wrote:or for that matter do some EFFING recycling!? since 'spent' fuel rods contain a LOT of useful materials, like for instance plenty of fissile material to use in nuclear reactors....but noooo there are rules that forbid that...since the same 'principles' and 'methods' are used when creating weapons grade fissile material...
Hm, liquid metal as "coolant" and moderator. Ask the russians, what a hell this is... (submarine-powerplants etc)discord wrote:or work out the kinks in FAST reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_reactor which effectively could burn out the 'waste' as fuel...
But were still talking about reprocessing. And in reprocessing there´s waste, and possible mistakes.discord wrote:basically, current design reactors and recycling fuel rods would lower the amount of 'waste' by at least 50% and could get closer to 100% than you might think.
Come on, that´s just PR.discord wrote:http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archi ... uclear.pdf <---- nice little text on the subject, damn it is annoying when real life physics comes and annoys peoples delusions...
I sadly don´t know, but pls bring some along if you find them.discord wrote:and yes, i enjoy killing cat girls, i would like to adopt a few though for safekeeping of the species, can someone point out where/how you do that?
And coal mining is so much better...Trantor wrote:What about the atrocities in the whole chain? From mining (see impact from the Grasberg-mine alone, or how the miners in africa suffer), then the oh-so clean processing? And reprocessing?
We don't need to store it forever. The "spent", mostly-unburned fuel that's been through a generation 1, 2, or 3 reactor once is almost entirely still useful fuel. We can build reactors now that reduce the fuel to isotopes that'll be safe in a matter of centuries, both eliminating the long term waste problem and greatly decreasing the amount of fissile isotopes that have to be mined in the first place...given current stockpiles, we could get by without mining anything at all for a good long time. It can be considered a type of transmutation, just one that has the pleasant side effect of producing power.Trantor wrote:And don´t forget about all our supersafe ultimate disposal places!
Oh. Wait one. There isn´t. And there will never be. Gosh. This shit radiates for a million years, where to put it save? How much will this cost? And will it be save forever? Or do we just curse or children for our shareholder benefit, and leave it to them? (Did i hear someone saying "transmutation"? :mrgreen: )
No, JAIF has been publishing regular updates since the earthquake and tsunami took the plant down, from a few days after the quake they were estimating severe core damage in 1 and 3. Estimates later went up to 50-70%, and back down to 50% based on what available instrumentation seemed to be saying. You can check, the updates are still up. So are all the posts in this thread...Trantor wrote:No, sir. From the beginning on there were lies and malicious deceit from the officials.An update on the status of Fukushima: from the beginning, it was known the cores had sustained damage,
The one who published first that there was something bad going on was fiercly decried by you.
CTBTO is not taking measurements of the reactor temperatures, pressures, and water levels and flow rates, etc. Your "said measurements" is incorrect, their measurements have absolutely nothing to do with this. I'm talking about temperature, pressure, and water level measurements made at the Fukushima plant, much of the data coming from instrumentation that's been repaired, installed, or made accessible by workers relatively recently as working conditions in the buildings have improved.Trantor wrote:Now you see my with my jaw dropped.Combining computer simulations with measurements taken from the reactors over time and with better measurements taken more recently, it looks like the cores did worse than thought,
Weren´t you the one who decried said measurements from the CTBTO?
I'm at a complete loss as to why you refer to time series measurement data in machine-readable form and a few example visualizations of said data as "simulations" or why you keep comparing such data to a Powerpoint presentation. There were no simulations whatsoever at that page, and no Powerpoint presentations.Trantor wrote:The one who brought up this guy from England with his powerpoint-yadayada-"simulations" that said everything will be in perfect order, nothing happened?
Yup, it's all in the thread. I think you might want to check the score again.Trantor wrote:Let´s check: Ah, yes, it´s all in the Thread. Sry, you lose.
I don't have to do anything to make you look like an anti-nuke-nut...you're constantly misrepresenting and cherry-picking information, ignoring information that contradicts your views, and ranting about conspiracies and coverups. You're doing the job quite well all on your own.Trantor wrote:Lies, lies, lies and malicious deceit. There was a tsunami in the same region around 1900 with a height of 14m. And that wasn´t the only one. They simply ignored it.Keep in mind that there was no reason to expect an earthquake and tsunami of this severity,
You know what´s funny?
You´re subtly trying to make me look like an ideologist (anti-nuke-nut), but it´s not me who´s the ideologically blinded here.
It is a curious blind spot. I'm not sure why you have these irrational beliefs about nuclear power, but education seems to help in many cases...if you can let go of the preconceived belief that nuclear power must be bad and reason from facts instead.Trantor wrote:And that btw is an interesting phenomenon, because i´d normally consider you a well educated and intelligent person. You show a lot of knowledge in your posts, especially in science and tech topics, but at least in this vital case you draw utterly false conclusions. I really puzzle about this.