Radioactive contamination models and dispersion charts

Todd Duncan Tennyson

Todd Duncan Tennyson

Well-known member
We can not depend on our reliable information from the folks at TEPCO in regards to the severity of the pollution form the Fukushima facilities.

If you have children or grandchildren. Please take the time to dig into the models and forecasts, as youngsters are at a much greater risk to potential problems from exposures, simply because the problems post exposure will have more time to manifest themselves, and they have many more cells in the phase of growth than an adult does.

It is not exactly feasible to live in a cave until all the garbage is gone (because it will be here longer than we will) some of it.

but if you can pick and choose the days that you expose yourself, and scrub up with warm soap and water after exposure, brush your dogs off with a broom and try not to let them out when there is a driving rain.... this might help at least limit your overall exposure.

Please take the time to study the information. It gets fairly detailed, has surface readings, as well as readings from higher elevations. These different readings are listed on the rt hand margin of the page for the different isotopes, and they can take a fair amount of time to display since there is very high traffic at the site.


Be safe and use this information to protect yourself and the little ones that will be most affected.

Best to you all.

todd
http://www.woweather.com/weather/new...s&VAR=euradsfc
 
But we are all exposed to some level of radiation everyday. So what is the elevated level? Or are we just going to turn in to Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk?
 
This animation displays a potential dispersion of the radioactive cloud (Caesium 137 Isotope) after a nuclear accident in reactor Fukushima I. The continuous release rate is very uncertain, thus the calculations have to be interpreted qualitatively. Dispersion in the near surface level (Level 1), in appr. 2500 m height (Level 12) and in appr. 5000 m height (Level 16).

The words POTENTIAL, UNCERTAIN, INTERPRETED in this statement leave a lot of room for speculation on this.
I look at this kind of like global warming, you kind find a expert to back every opinion.
How about the gulf oil spill? Was it as bad as they said it would be? Any one down that care to throw there .02 in?
Kind of curious if it is as bad as they made it out to be on tv.
 
Last edited:
Well, I bet that none of us would strip naked and lay out in the summer sun all day long.

This will be kind of like that, only the day, will be months,
and the summer sun will be nuclear pollution.

And the sun will never set.
 
Phil,

It just so happens that I was in your area the other day fishing North Bear creek. Now that you have shared your passion about sun bathing, I'll make sure that if I do drop in unannounced,,,,,

it will be on a CLOUDY day!!
 
I look at this kind of like global warming, you kind find a expert to back every opinion.
How about the gulf oil spill? Was it as bad as they said it would be? Any one down that care to throw there .02 in?
Kind of curious if it is as bad as they made it out to be on tv.
Click to expand...

I deal with both of these issues as part of my work.

Global Warming? Is it happening? Definately. Tons of long term trend data to back that up. I am not talking about short term weather observations, but long term climate trends. Are we causing it? Probably not all of it, but we damn sure aren't helping by pumping millions of tons of previously sequestered CO2 into the atomsphere.
Same thing with sea level rise, no argument: it is happening. Unless 99% of the tide gauges in the world are wrong. Are we causing it? See above.

Gulf Oil Spill? Is it as bad as everyone thought? Jury is still out. Level of impact varies from area to area. And we won't know for years how this stuff might or might not work its way up the food chain. We just wont really know until we do the proper monitoring & investigations, which underway and will be for years.
 
I look at this kind of like global warming, you kind find a expert to back every opinion.
How about the gulf oil spill? Was it as bad as they said it would be? Any one down that care to throw there .02 in?
Kind of curious if it is as bad as they made it out to be on tv.
Click to expand...

I deal with both of these issues as part of my work.

Global Warming? Is it happening? Definately. Tons of long term trend data to back that up. I am not talking about short term weather observations, but long term climate trends. Are we causing it? Probably not all of it, but we damn sure aren't helping by pumping millions of tons of previously sequestered CO2 into the atomsphere.
Same thing with sea level rise, no argument: it is happening. Unless 99% of the tide gauges in the world are wrong. Are we causing it? See above.

Gulf Oil Spill? Is it as bad as everyone thought? Jury is still out. Level of impact varies from area to area. And we won't know for years how this stuff might or might not work its way up the food chain. We just wont really know until we do the proper monitoring & investigations, which underway and will be for years.
Click to expand...


Thanks Carl, for stepping up and clarifying that point on climate change. I'll just add that the perception may be that scientists are divided on the climate change issue and that may be true if you consider 100:1 or 1000:1 divided. There is consensus that the climate is changing and that it is human caused. Consensus being not 50.1% vs. 49.9%, but more like 99% of climate scientists.
 
A friend sent me an article that was in Slate yesterday that deals with some of these issues.
http://www.slate.com/id/2291272/

As I read it, the bottom line is that we know unequivocally that high doses of radiation have direct, measurable and significant effects, particularly by increasing rates of certain cancers far above background levels. At moderate to high exposures, there seems to be a relationship between the radiation dose and the magnitude of increased cancer rates. And at very high doses, burns and radiation poisoning become an issue.

What's not known is what happens at low doses, and it would be very difficult to determine that, particularly if the anticipated effect is small. It may be the case that there is some threshold level of low exposure that is "safe". On the other hand it may be that any radiation exposure results in increased risk, though the magnitude of risk is smaller with lower doses.

In the face of such uncertainty, it seems prudent to take all possible measures to minimize radiation releases and exposure.

The flip side of the argument, however, is that many of the alternatives to nuclear power also have significant risks. (See Carl's comments above on the risks of oil, or think about what acid mine drainage and mountain top removal have done in Appalachia, not to mention the dead workers on oil rigs and in coal mines, increased asthma and other respiratory diseases--which, like radiation, increase death rates, etc.)

That is not an argument to do nothing. I'd make restrictions on nuclear plants, oil rigs, and coal mines all more protective--and figure the slight increase in energy costs that would result would be worth it in terms of better health and protection of fish and wildlife habitat.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for my appointment to be the Supreme Regulatory Czar of the world energy market.




Edited to add the link to the Slate article.
 
Last edited:
I look at this kind of like global warming, you kind find a expert to back every opinion.
How about the gulf oil spill? Was it as bad as they said it would be? Any one down that care to throw there .02 in?
Kind of curious if it is as bad as they made it out to be on tv.
Click to expand...

I deal with both of these issues as part of my work.

Global Warming? Is it happening? Definately. Tons of long term trend data to back that up. I am not talking about short term weather observations, but long term climate trends. Are we causing it? Probably not all of it, but we damn sure aren't helping by pumping millions of tons of previously sequestered CO2 into the atomsphere.
Same thing with sea level rise, no argument: it is happening. Unless 99% of the tide gauges in the world are wrong. Are we causing it? See above.

Gulf Oil Spill? Is it as bad as everyone thought? Jury is still out. Level of impact varies from area to area. And we won't know for years how this stuff might or might not work its way up the food chain. We just wont really know until we do the proper monitoring & investigations, which underway and will be for years.
Click to expand...


Thanks Carl, for stepping up and clarifying that point on climate change. I'll just add that the perception may be that scientists are divided on the climate change issue and that may be true if you consider 100:1 or 1000:1 divided. There is consensus that the climate is changing and that it is human caused. Consensus being not 50.1% vs. 49.9%, but more like 99% of climate scientists.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but that one scientist in a thousand has big business buying him a fancy soap-box and a really big megaphone...so who you going to listen to, or more to the point, who does the average joe listen too when the mainstream media is bought and paid for...
 
That is not an argument to do nothing. I'd make restrictions on nuclear plants, oil rigs, and coal mines all more protective--and figure the slight increase in energy costs that would result would be worth it in terms of better health and protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
Click to expand...

Meantime our local news coverage is headlining $4 gas...Oh the humanity...
 
Tod,
You hit the nail on the head, the talking heads on cable news out there pick up on the 1 scientist who disagrees at some level and then says that human induced climate change is BS. Well, hate to break it to everyone, but the climate is changing. The only arguments are:
1. are we causing it (vast majority of scientist studying it say yes); and
2. then what the heck are we going to do about it and is it really already too late?

To me, No 2. is the more pressing issue, there are no alternative energy sources of meaningful scale to replace nuclear or fossil fuels on the horizon unless there is a huge breakthrough in fusion (dont see that happening anytime soon).

Sea Level Rise is a similar issue, lots of people with their heads in the sand on this issue. Problem is, that in 100 years, their heads will be in sand under 2' of water! Sea level here has risen over 1' in the last century (based on accurate tide gauge readings). But that rate has increased recently. If the trend keeps up, and there is no reason to believe it wont and will probably speed up, we have roads and infrastructure that will flood on every high tide in 25-50 years. You guys on the east coast are facing the same thing. But is anyone taking action? NOPE. Lots of plans being made, lots of discussion, but no action.

Off my soap box for now....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top