Japanese nuke problems

[Brian W]

Hi I find the article at the following link very disturbing but I do not have the ability to critique it. I surely would appreciate some assessments from you science types.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

Brian

[xelasnave]

A beat up. .there is nothing to worry about Npower is much safer than coal because it has a small carbon foot print.
alexy

[morls]

I'd have to disagree that there is nothing to worry about...the impact of this nuclear accident is going to be long-term, and I wonder how long it will be until the exclusion zone becomes habitable again.

Given that they are now finding radioactivity in groundwater and in the ocean near the plant http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/13/3242749.htm?section=justin, it seems that the incident is still unfolding.

There's also some interesting information about the carbon footprint here http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html

Also, I'm not sure how having a smaller carbon footprint can make nuclear power plants safer?

Cheers

Stephen

[xelasnave]

You are of course correct.
We will be told it is safe but they are liars.
Japans horror will reach everywhere but to suggest such one will be called alarmist...we shall see...we musr never fall for the NP solution because accidents happen irrespective of wonderful safty engineering. ..

[morls]

Yeah, and nuclear accidents have the potential to make places uninhabitable, totally toxic to life, over a wide area, for a long, long time...

[renormalised]

That's why there's a combined 1-2 million people now living in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's also why in the Gabon in Africa there is a natural nuclear reactor that has been leaching radioactive isotopes out into the surrounding countryside for the best part of 2.5 billion years and still is. That same reactor melted down about a billion years ago. That same nuclear reactor is loaded with all sorts of life forms, especially various species of bacteria.

People need to get a little perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause. Most of the nuclear isotopes that will leak from these reactors are short lived...yes, they will cause harm if ingested or they're come into contact for any period of time in exposed situations. So long as the containment vessels aren't breached and the plutonium in the core of the reactors isn't leaking out, nature will do the rest to clean the materials out of the ecosystem. Many of these isotopes are of elements which are highly reactive....iodine, cesium etc, with relatively short half-lives but that chelate readily with many of the substances found in ground and seawaters....chlorine and sodium salts, clay particles etc. In short, they're taken out of the system rather quickly. It's only substances such as Strontium 90, Plutonium and any isotope that gives of gamma rays on decay which are inherently dangerous, especially if they have long half-lives. However, the main problem with Plutonium isn't the immediate radioactivity, it's the fact that it is inherently a very toxic substance....chemically. It doesn't take much exposure to do a lot of damage and that's on top of its radioactive dangers.

[renormalised]

However, if you think coal is safer...think again. It is also radioactive, or can be.

[morls]

From what i can gather the Gabon had an output of 100kW, compared to the following figures I got from http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2011/03/spent_fuel_pool_of_unit_4.html

"Fukushima-I (Daiichi) has six boiling water reactors (BWR), ranging from 460 MW to 1100 MW, started up between 1970 and 1979. Fukushima-II (Daini) has four 1100 MW BWRs, commissioned between 1981 and 1986. Eleven nuclear reactors were in operation and three in planned outage in the coastal areas of Japan...when the tsunami struck (my words)..... All units had emergency shutdowns. In the follow-up, seven reactors declared a nuclear emergency, in particular because of lack of power supply and deficient cooling systems.

So, I'm not sure if comparing the environmental impact of a 100kW reactor to at least 5 1100MW and 5 at least 460MW reactors has any real validity here.

As far as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki situations, I reckon there would be a huge difference in the effects of an atmospheric explosion compared as opposed to a partial meltdown. Also, the amounts of fissile material would be far greater in the case of 10 reactors plus 40 years of waste.

As far as getting perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause, here's some perspective from someone who has experienced the harm they can do first-hand....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12344861

Cheers

Stephen

[xelasnave]

Hi Carl it is good to have your assurances as to just how safe NP really is. ..I wonder how some folk who have sufferred from the minimal dangers of a meltdown or explosion. I think perspective is the word to focus upon. How many Coal Power Stations blow up leaving absolute devestation.
Am I unreasonable to be worried that we could be affected in the long term.
We have no idea what really went into the air andthe water so is there no reason for concern.
Alex

[Brian W]

Just for the record, if the article is correct there were multiple total meltdowns as well as melt throughs.

As well the west coast of America had a 34% spike in infant mortality at the same time as the Japanese problem was unfolding.

As I understand the situation with NP if absolutely nothing ever goes wrong there is still the problem of disposing of not only the spent fuel but also the spent fuel containers? When something does go wrong (and it is as inevitable as air-planes crashing) then the problems all become deadly.

How is NP a green solution?
Brian

[morls]

Here's an article comparing Chernobyl and Hiroshima....

http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa12det.html

[morls]

Coal's radioactivity is measured as 830 Bq/kg. Uranium's radioactivity is measured as 12,356 Bq/g. To give us the same scale of measurement we need to multiply the Uranium figure by 1000. Gives us:

Coal - 830 Bq/kg
Uranium - 12,356,000 Bq/kg

So yes, I do think coal is safer.

Cheers

Stephen

[morls]

actually, I got that wrong. I was only looking at the figures for U-234. The total activity for naturally occurring Uranium is 25, 280 Bq/g. So, the comparison should be:

Coal - 830 Bq/kg
Naturally occurring Uranium - 25,280,000 Bq/kg

And this is only naturally occurring uranium. Because the reactors at Fukushima are light water reactors, this natural uranium does not have enough fissile material to begin the reaction, and so uranium needs to be enriched. The amount of U-235 is increased to ~3.5%, or alternatively the uranium is combined with plutonium, to make mixed oxide (MOX) fuel rods. The Fukushima reactors use both types (I think).

I think coal is safer. But dirty. Renewables are the way to go, as much and as quickly as possible. Maybe in combination with best-practice fossil fuel technology as we make the transition. It's the only long-term solution.

All of this is of course just my own amateur opinion....

Stephen

[bojan]

But if we put this into perspective.. coal burning products are released into atmosphere, while spent nuclear fuel is not.

Also, there is no inherent safety of anything - if we are careless with coal burning plants, they may be much more unsafe than well kept nuclear plant.

We are talking about nuclear plant only when something bad happens.
Fukushima disaster is a disaster of course, but clearly, there were very wrong decisions made about it in the past (it was meant to be decommissioned 10 year ago?).
And, it was not the reactor which failed - it was the cooling system, diesels choked by incoming water brought by tsunami.
So... if those "peripheral" issues were handled properly on time, the disaster wouldn't happened.

[morls]

Yes, I agree coal is very unsafe. The accumulative effects of coal and other fossil fuels are very big issues, maybe the biggest we've had to face? I just don't think nuclear power is the whole answer, or should even be part of the answer. I think there is always the possibility of something unforseen happening, so despite the best safety precautions there is always a risk. And with nuclear, the potential is for an accident to become a catastrophe.

The whole energy issue is so complex. It may be that my own ideas about nuclear are incorrect, so I'm going to do a bit of research to try and understand a bit more. I'll also try to unpack the Fukushima situation a bit for Brian, (and myself!)

Cheers

Stephen

[CraigS]

The Fuskushima reactors have been in commercial operation since 1971, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1978 and 1979 respectively (reactors 1 to 6). Over this time, they have been continuously producing 460, 784, 784, 784, 784, 1,100 MW (instantaneous power rating), respectively. This energy is directly responsible for Japan's economic development since 1970. Japan's economic development since 1970, has been directly contributing to the world's and your lifestyles, and economic well-being over this time frame.

I'd call that benefit.

"Renewables" for producing this amount of power, (instantaneous), were not available over this time frame. They are still not available. Wishing that such alternatives was/are real does not make them real. Technological development is not purely a function of investment. Technology development is usually a medium-high economic risk factor. Economic risk can result in serious widespread massive economic disaster and massive death/casualities.

I'll say it again … Technological development is not purely a function of investment … the relationship between the acquisition of knowledge derived from research, is not linearly related to investment funding. Humans take time to accumulate knowledge. Time is an independent variable, and is invariant of human investment.



Yep ! I'll go one step further, and state that people need to learn what parameters are involved in 'making something happen'.

All conversations on this topic constantly imply that humans can make viable technical/economic alternatives appear out of thin air. There is no historical evidence of this.

Only belief and blind faith.

Lets get clear about that.

Cheers

[renormalised]

That's not how it works. Your figures are correct but it's what comes out the coal that is the problem....radon gas. Many coal seems are full of the gas because the sediments the coal is buried in and the many rocks which underlie coal measures are full of it themselves, since they contain uranium.

In any case, apart from any radioactive substances that maybe present, you have the problems of coal dust, methane and everything else that is associated with health and safety problem in coal. Let alone burning the stuff and releasing CO2, NO2, H2S, SO2 etc etc. If you think coal is safer, then you're fooling yourself.

[renormalised]

You can quote all the figures you like in comparison, the amount of radioactive material released by the natural nuclear piles in the Gabon far exceeds anything that's ever been released by humans. It's a matter of timescale. It's not a matter of kilowattage.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs never released as much radioactive material into the environment. However, the effects are still the same as the isotopes are the same. The effects on the environment, whilst limited to the immediate areas for the most part as the fallout from those two bombs was limited (due to their small size), was still comparable to a nuclear meltdown in a plant. However, the initial effects were much more immediate, since they were atmospheric bomb bursts. They released far more radioactive substance via atmospheric effects than those reactors have, except in the case of a protracted period of release by those reactors.

A far as perspective goes, I'm more than aware of it myself, but the link will enlighten those that aren't.

[xelasnave]

Steven is right. Even if we use coal, NP andall the alternative energy we can introduce we need more energy Android removing any source is not easy.
But the question raised here really was what are the current dangers andlong term issues for Japan andothers. What fears are reasonable. How much dangerous material has been lost andspecifically how long will it float around before it becomes Android acceptable level.
One side suggests there is nothing to worry about the other hold Android opposite view. What is a realistic view of long term harm Android the extent of effcts.
Alex

[morls]

I was just making the point that, in terms of radioactivity, I believe coal is much safer. I was talking strictly in terms of inherent radioactivity, nothing else. I don't think I'm fooling myself. I'm trying to learn about this stuff, and I'm completely comfortable with being totally wrong. As I learn more my views may well change.

[renormalised]

In many ways, nuclear powerplants are far safer than coal fired ones, and for one thing don't pump vast amounts of crud into our environment. However, they're not entirely safe and when things do go wrong, for whatever reasons, you have the problems of very dangerous substances being potentially released into the environment. There's always a reason to be concerned with the release of radioactive substances into the environment, but things have to be put into perspective. It's what gets released that is the crux of the matter. Most of the substances that are released by faulty nuclear plants are short lived isotopes. Most have half-lives less than 40 years. But more importantly, they're high reactive substances, chemically. That's what makes them harmful when it comes to biological systems...they can be taken up readily in food chains. Some are chemically toxic, but most aren't. It's then their radioactivity does the damage. However, being highly reactive chemically, much of it will be sequestered into the environment in the sediments in lakes, rivers, oceans etc. Also in small quantities as solutes in water.

The big danger is if you get uranium and plutonium in the environment. Uranium is only mildly toxic unless ingested/inhaled and you can hold a piece of uranium in your hands. I've done it myself. But plutonium is another story entirely. However, over long periods of time, because of the radioactivity which can be given off by both, they can be a hazard...plutonium far more so than uranium. Uranium is weakly radioactive in its pure metallic (refined) state. As I said, you can hold it without any trouble. Just feels slightly warm to the touch. Unless you have a critical mass of the material, of course. But plutonium you can't...it is also far more radiogenic than uranium. You need to have lead lined gloves and make sure it's not close to its critical mass.

The big thing with uranium and plutonium is their long half-lives. U235 is 704 million years, P239 is 24000 years. They hang around for a long time and that's what makes them scary. However, with the naturally occurring isotopes and the synthetics (under critical mass), their decay mode is by alpha emissions (Helium nuclei) and they can't penetrate your skin. A sheet of paper will stop alpha particles. It's only when they're at critical mass do you get large emissions of gamma rays, which will do the damage. That's what the scaremongers berate you with and what they don't tell you about it. For a nuclear reaction to occur where gamma emissions are present, the metals have to be at or close to critical mass, which for plutonium is about 5kg and about 7-8kg for uranium. The balls of metal are about as big as a grapefruit.

The immediate radioactive damage caused by atomic bombs and certain highly radioactive substances such as caesium and iodine isotopes is because of the gamma radiation they give off. That's what they play upon with people's minds. That and the other effects of the bombs (mostly the tremendous heat they produce and the burning of people due to this).

If you want to find out about uranium, plutonium and the other radioactive substances, just go and look them up. All the info is there for you to make up your own mind about it.

[renormalised]

That spike in infant mortality is totally coincidental, Brian. There is no statistical correlation and it could've happened in any case and most likely would've. I'd be more inclined to put it down to environmental or social problems along the west coast. Pollution, drug abuse, or whatever. The fact that it happened when the Fukushima is just a coincidence and in typical media fashion they'd beat it up or make connections that weren't even there.

NP is a lot "greener" than coal, but it still has its problems. I can tell you now, nothing we do in generating power is truly green. Not even solar energy. All this talk about "green" power is nonsense and a beat up. The only way you're ever going to get "green" power without any perceived environmental issues (so far as we know) is to harness ZPE. But then you have to have an efficient and safe way to distribute that energy. Plus, we don't yet know what taking power directly out of spacetime itself will do so far as the environment is concerned. More to the point, how do you even extract it in the first place??. There's plenty of it there...there's enough ZPE in a space the size of a coffee cup to run the power needs of the entire planet for the next billion years, but what will extracting it do??

See what I mean about this "green" business.

Want to be truly "green"....kill off 99% of the world's population and then go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen or the Aborigines. That's the only way you'll do it.

[renormalised]

Precisely, Craig. The general public thinks that alternatives can be pulled out of a bag like a magic trick and this has been fostered upon them by whatever "anti-this or that" "green" organisations have proselytised over the years. They actually do more harm than good because they spread erroneous ideas about what can and cannot be done and what they believe is "green" actually isn't when you care to really look into it. All they do is polarise people's opinions and things get nowhere, fast.

It takes time and effort to produce new technologies. It also costs a lot of money and it takes the investment of a lot of intellectual capital to realise a new technology. You can't pull them out of hat, nor can you rush them into production or even into reality. The operative factor here is time. You can invest vast amounts of money, which will help, but it still takes time to come up with and then realise a new technology. No amount of money will pull a new idea out of a hat.

[CraigS]

Ahhh .. but then there are those who think humans are capable of everything … 'humans can do anything when they put their minds to it !!'

Get real … things that roll off the end of a tongue are just that … dribble.

Cheers
PS: From 'grouchy old Craig'. :)

[renormalised]

Humanity can do anything if we put our minds to it....but that still takes time:):)

How long??...who knows.

[xelasnave]

Thanks Carl that was excellent. So how much plutonium has got away woud be the main concern but not the only one.
I have been living with only one solar panel, a 700 watt genny Android 100 amp battery for so long I can't see any problems other than petrol for me but for city folk energy must be a big worry. The boat is sail power but I have to get a new diesel to do any serious trips really.
Germany say they will drop NP but I can't se.e them doing that...I can't see alternate power filling the void...individuals may get by with my set up but how coupd you run all their factories on solar etc...
I was interested in your zpe comments
Alex

[CraigS]

Extracting useful ZPE results in violation of Conservation of Energy …

Thar ain't no such thing as a 'perpetual motion machine' (except in the hallowed church of cosmic plasma).

Cheers

[bojan]

Carl, you are reading my mind :thumbsup:

[jeff65]

Questions of the risk / reward balance of nuclear power generation in ideal situations aside, something I'd like to see discussed is whether a corporation is the best risk manager for nuclear power generation.

If trusting the profit motive of an entity with limited liability is the best we can come up with, I say there is no way that it is worth the risk!

[CraigS]

Try this (http://www.iaea.org/About/japan-infosheet.html) for some credible assessment of the real facts on the Fukushima situation ..

From the same IAEA website[/URL] … Radiation in Everyday Life (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/radlife.html) (worth the read to put it all in perspective):



Cheers

[xelasnave]

My father told me there is no perpetual motion and I spent my life trying to proove him incorrect Android so far he wins but his words caused my interest in all the things that I am interested in...
Alex

[CraigS]

Give up trying to prove people incorrect, Alex.

Try living in a world where there are only shades of grey, opinions and physical reality … (and focus on distinguishing physical realities from the rest).

:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

Not necessarily....we've yet to really play around with this physics. In any case, if you can't measure the quantity of energy within a system due to quantum uncertainty, who's to say the law applies anyway. It maybe like GR, only a macroscopic level reality and when you consider quantum level processes then the law becomes approximate or even untenable at a certain level of process. That doesn't mean to say that perpetual motion is possible. Just that we don't know what's really going on and it maybe that we have to modify our understanding of energy conservation on these levels (like gravity) in order to be able to see what's really happening.

Still doesn't let off the EU guys or any other mob of crackpots:P

[Brian W]

Indeed Carl at the core of the energy problem is the simple question 'for how many people'. In the Philippines we are now having serious debates about artificial birth control.

You are also correct that there is no apparent connection other than the time frame for t5he infant mortality.

I also agree that there is no 'green' solution and that if there is a solution to be found that it will not happen over night.

But if I may try to redirect this thread back to the original concern.

Is the nuke problem in Japan as bad as the linked article claims?
Brian

[renormalised]

I agree with you totally here. The whole socioeconomic system is at fault here. Given what can happen, I wouldn't trust any corporation to handle a system such as nuclear energy. It's well and dandy whilst everything is going fine, but then you see the true nature of the beast rear its head when something goes wrong. It's the same with the governments. Take the credit for the good bits, but pass the buck, lie and obfuscate when things go pear shaped. However, all organisations are like that. Whether they're government, business, NGO's, env' groups etc. Power attracts the wrong type of people and everyone else allows them to gain that privileged position. That's where the problems start.

[renormalised]

You have to look at all the evidence and weigh it up. You also have to be mindful of the various agendas that are raising their heads here. This disaster will be milked for all it's worth, by both sides. What you have to do is cut through all the garbage and find the answer for yourself.

Unfortunately, most people are not capable of and/or unwilling to do this and they just follow whatever they feel suits them best. That's when the real problems (apart from the "actual" problems themselves) arise.

[xelasnave]

I conceed my motivation must appear as you see it...but I don't care about being right or wrong only to find out if long held beliefs are valid....the quest for pp saw me at 11 yrs old working out the electric motor...that was my first attempt to beat pp but that lead me to realise the relevence of friction Android energy conservation violation...so I must see the benefits of the hunt for pp.
Ultimately we may find a pp energy source but getting past friction or ware and tear would seem impossible.....thinking about pp is like thinking about nothing. ...there is so much to it when you think about it.
alex

[xelasnave]

The ultimate irony with NP is that we still are only producing steam power and in that regard have not moved the game far forward. As a friend said why can't we just get electricity without steam...seem a small ask but how?
Alex

[renormalised]

You could use the gamma rays to generate the electricity....much like visible light photons hitting a solar array. Only problem is the gamma rays would tend to ionise the material they hit and you'd lose charge. What you'd need is a material which could undergo the photoelectric effect and create electron-hole pairs using very high energy photons, without completely ionising or not at all. Then you could bombard it with the gamma rays and extract the electricity from the array without eroding it away. If you can come up with that material, you'll win a Nobel Prize.

[morls]

Hi Brian,

To address your initial question, I've done a summary of some information I found at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/

I'm not sure about the copyright/legal issues involved if I upload a document that summarises and uses directly material from a website, so I leave off doing that for now. If it isn't a copyright issue I'd be glad to upload it...

I'll try to sum up what I've been able to find out...

---------------

First, some terminology. I’ve used this document to learn about Boiling Water Reactors: http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/npp2.pdf

I’ll use these terms:
RPV - Reactor Pressure Vessel. As I understand it, this is where water comes into direct contact with the nuclear material. This generates steam which drives turbines, thus generating power. This water is highly radioactive.

RCV – Reactor Containment Vessel. This encloses the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), other primary components and piping. Reinforced concrete, designed to prevent the release of radioactive substances.

SFP - Spent Fuel Pool. The spent fuel is stored in a pool on-site, and needs to be kept covered in water and cooled at all times to prevent possible heat buildup and reactivity.

TEPCO - Tokyo Electric Power Company, operators of the Fukushimi Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

--------------

So, it seems the main issues are with the Fukushimi Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. There are 4 reactors there.

There are 5 main criteria used to describe the situation at the plant:



1. CONTROL OF REACTIVITY.
This is achieved when the reactor is subcritical, and this can be demonstrated and maintained. This has been achieved in all 4 reactors.



2. RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL
This function requires keeping the coolant temperature sufficiently below boiling point at atmospheric pressure, covering the damaged core with water, having off-site and backup power available and having long term closed-loop heat removal capability.

This has not been achieved in Reactors 1,2 and 3.

Reactor 1:
- Changes in Temperature and pressure are not significant.
- Provisional analysis shows that fuel pellets melted and fell to the bottom of the RCV. TEPCO also reported that leakage of cooling water from the RPV is likely to have occurred.

If I understand this correctly, it means the fuel pellets have melted through the RPV, and are now on the floor of the RCV. This has resulted in the leaking of highly radioactive water into the RCV. It is likely this water has leaked from the RCV.

Reactor 2:
-Changes in temperature and pressure are not significant.
-Water level of reactor core is about 1500mm and 2100mm from the top of active core. Fresh water injection is provided, however closed loop heat removal is not yet established.

I understand this to mean the upper part of the nuclear fuel is exposed. This is not good, as it needs to be covered in water to keep the temperature under control.

Reactor 3:
There have been increases in temperature noted. How significant this is, I don't know.


3. Containment Integrity

This criteria is met when the containment is leak-tight, containment pressure maintained below design limits and hydrogen explosion prevented.

This has not been achieved in reactors 1, 2 and 3.

Unit 1
Pressure stabilised below design limits, but safe state not achieved.

Unit 2
Containment believed to be damaged.

I take this to mean the RCV is damaged.

Unit 3
(quoting directly from IAEA document)
"On 20 March a sudden significant drop in pressure in the reactor pressure vessel and a decrease in the containment pressure occurred. The reasons for this are unknown. One possible explanation is a loss of containment integrity; however, the pressure in the containment was decreasing slowly and at present remains stable at around atmospheric. In addition water on the turbine building floor of Unit 3 does not show high level radioactivity. Images showed a crack in the primary containment and steam being released from the reactor building."



4. Confining radioactive material

This is achieved when RPV doesn't leak, or leak is confined. Leakages from containment should be prevented or controlled.

This has been partially achieved in reactor 1, and not achieved in reactors 2 and 3.

Reactor 1:
RPV is assumed to be leaking. The location of the leak is not clear as the level in the reactor is not known. TEPCO reports that leaking of cooling water from RPV due to pellets melted and falling to the bottom of the RPV is likely to have occurred.. TEPCO considers the actual damage to RPV is limited.

Reactor 2
RPV is assumed to be leaking. Location of leak is not clear as the level in the reactor is not known. Containment is believed to be damaged. Construction of a cover above the reactor building has to be pursued.

Reactor 3
RPV is assumed to be leaking. Location of the leak is not clear, as the level in the reactor is not known. Containment is believed to be damaged. Construction of a cover above the reactor building should be pursued.


5. Limiting Effects of Releases

No additional releases shall be anticipated, and radiation monitoring effects shall be available.

Reactor 1
Intermittent releases have been observed. RPV and RCV are assumed to be leaking. Opening of the airlock in reactor building did not lead to measurable increase in releases to environment.

Reactor 2
Intermittent releases have been observed. Samples of water in the turbine building floor show high radioactivity releases from the reactor and the containment to the environment.

Reactor 3
Intermittent releases have been observed. RPV and pressure containment vessel are assumed to be leaking. Highly contaminated water flew out into the sea from a pit near the intake channel of Unit 3 (NISA report May23).

Again, a lot, close to all of this actually, is copied directly from the IAEA site and documents.

One thing I have noticed is that they are only able to assume certain conditions, as the site is too dangerous to be observed directly.

Regarding the Spent Fuel Pools, in all cases periodical fresh water injection serves to reduce the SFP temperature. However the closed loop cooling system is not operative, and this must be reinstated.

Now some information from http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/radiological-monitoring-and-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident-2-june-2011

Again, I am quoting directly and summarising...

RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING AND CONSEQUENCES OF FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

This document contains lots of data regarding emission monitoring that I can’t comment about as I don't understand it.

Key points from document:

Deposition of I‐131 and Cs‐137 in 47 prefectures
I‐131 – (Radioactive Iodine?) Not detected since 18 May
Cs‐137– (Radioactive Caesium?) Detected in a few prefectures over a few days. Low levels ranging from 2.2 to 91 Bq/m2

Protective actions
• Drinking water: All restriction lifted
• The Government of Japan has announced evacuation measures:
– Beyond distances of 30 km from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants
– NISA: evacuation of the “Planned Evacuation Zones” within Iitate village and Kawamata town commenced on 15 May.

Food Monitoring and Food Restrictions (Reported 19 – 31 May)
• 818 samples from 18 prefectures
• Over 40% of monitoring is in Fukushima prefecture
• Over 93% of samples indicated Cs‐134 /Cs‐137 or I‐131 were not detected or were below the Japanese regulation values
• Less than 7% were above the Japanese regulation values for Cs‐134 /Cs‐137 and/or I‐131
• Restrictions on the distribution and/or consumption of specific foods in certain areas of Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures remain in place


So, there seems to be limited impact on food supplies. However, I do remember hearing somewhere that the Japanese regulation values were changed after this incident, raising the minimum exposure guidelines. This is not something I am sure of though, and needs further research to confirm or otherwise.

Finally, I'll again summarise and quote directly from the following document:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/marine-environment-monitoring-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident-2-june-2011

MARINE ENVIRONMENT MONITORING

General Comments:

The contamination of the marine environment has occurred both through atmospheric fallout or washout with precipitation, and through discharges of contaminated water into the sea

Discharge to the marine environment decreased significantly over time since end of March; concluding from the near field concentration measurements, up to now, more than 99 % of the activity was discharged between 28th of March and 11th of April.

There is a further continuous discharge of contaminated water into the marine environment with variable activities and activity ratios between I-131 and the two dominating radio-caesium nuclides.

TEPCO and MEXT are continuing to conduct programmes for sea water sampling and to perform measurements. Also marine food and several sediment stations are now monitored.

Conclusions on the impact to the marine environment
• The highest levels of radioactive substances are still measured close to the Nuclear Power Stations Fukushima, namely at the screen of Unit 2, 30 m, 330 m and 10 km near-shore. The levels showed a decreasing trend until beginning of May but remained relatively constant since then.
• Higher activities are also found in surface sediments near the discharge areas of the NPPs.
• Concentration data from about 30 km off-shore are lower and most of the analyses were below the limit of detection at the applied methods (about 10 Bq/L).
• There is a continuous outflow of contaminated water from the site, which keeps the levels on the monitoring stations of TEPCO near the shore relatively constant.

Conclusions
In recent days, a significant increase of I-131 and - to a less extent
Cs-134/Cs-137 near the discharge area was observed
• Further dilution in the Pacific will lead to lower concentrations of longer lived radionuclides. Traces from the releases from Fukushima NPPs will be taken up by the Kuroshio-current system in the north Pacific and transported across the Ocean.


So, it seems there is continuing leaking of contaminated materials into the ocean, which is entering the oceanic current systems and being transported across the ocean. How significant this is I cannot comment on, but as there is a continuous outflow from the site I think there will be increasing residual contamination until this flow is stopped. Whether this is of a level to significanty impact the ecosystem, or alternatively register above background levels, is something I don't know.


I hope this helps Brian. I wanted to learn for myself more about what was exactly happening. I've tried to find sources that are as impartial as possible. It seems there are a lot of vested interests and agendas that I don't understand going on here, and it's kind of hard to get through all the noise. Hopefully by being as factual as possible we can move our understanding forward a bit.

I hope if anyone can interpret the data and offer more expert analysis than my own humble efforts they will chip in.

Cheers

Stephen

[renormalised]

Thanks for that info, Stephen. Very comprehensive, but still missing vital info, unfortunately. What we need is the rate of outflow from the discharge pipes on each of the reactors...which is where most of the radioactivity will be coming from.

[Brian W]

Yes Stephen it truly does help.
Brian

[morls]

I've found some more figures. This time from http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
I'll upload the pdf...

Some figures:

Reactor building 1 basement contains 3,900 m³ of water with a radiation level of 4.0E+5 Bq/cm3.

Reactor building 2 basement contains 6,000 m³ of water with a radiation level of 1.9E+7Bq/cm3.

Reactor building 3 basement contains 6,400 m³ of water with a radiation level of 3.8E+5Bq/cm3.

If I remember my high school physics, 1 cm³ of water weighs 1g. So, if we multiply the above radiation figures by 1000, we should get the figures for Bq/kg...

(Naturally Occurring Uranium - 12,356,000 Bq/kg)
Reactor building 1 basement water radiation level: 400,000,000 Bq/kg
Reactor building 2 basement water radiation level: 19,000,000,000 Bq/kg
Reactor building 3 basement water radiation level: 380,000,000 Bq/kg

I hope I've got the above figures wrong.

Some more:
Reactor 1 turbine building basement contains 8,400 m³ of water at the same level of radiation as the water in the reactor building 1 basement. At the water surface the radiation dose is 60mSv/h.
Reactor 2 turbine building basement contains 11,400 m³ of water at the same level of radiation as the water in the reactor building 2 basement. At the water surface the radiation dose is 1,000mSv/h.
Reactor 3 turbine building basement contains 8,400 m³ of water at the same level of radiation as the water in the reactor building 3 basement. At the water surface the radiation dose is 120-750mSv/h.

The total volume of accumulated water at the facility is 105,000m³.

In trying to understand these figures, the following website is useful:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/measurement.asp

from that site:
"Measuring Biological Risk
A person's biological risk (that is, the risk that a person will suffer health effects from an exposure to radiation) is measured using the conventional unit rem or the SI unit Sv.

To determine a person's biological risk, scientists have assigned a number to each type of ionizing radiation (alpha and beta particles, gamma rays, and x-rays) depending on that type's ability to transfer energy to the cells of the body. This number is known as the Quality Factor (Q).

When a person is exposed to radiation, scientists can multiply the dose in rad by the quality factor for the type of radiation present and estimate a person's biological risk in rems. Thus, risk in rem = rad X Q.

The rem has been replaced by the Sv. One Sv is equal to 100 rem."

And from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html

"What effects do different doses of radiation have on people?

One sievert is a large dose. The recommended TLV is average annual dose of 0.05 Sv (50 mSv).

The effects of being exposed to large doses of radiation at one time (acute exposure) vary with the dose. Here are some examples:

10 Sv - Risk of death within days or weeks

1 Sv - Risk of cancer later in life (5 in 100)

100 mSv - Risk of cancer later in life (5 in 1000)

50 mSv - TLV for annual dose for radiation workers in any one year

20 mSv - TLV for annual average dose, averaged over five years


What are the limits of exposure to radiation?

The Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) published by the ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) are used in many jurisdictions occupational exposure limits or guidelines:

20 mSv - TLV for average annual dose for radiation workers, averaged over five years

1 mSv - Recommended annual dose limit for general public (ICRP - International Commission on Radiological Protection)."

[CraigS]

Not hard to come up with accurate information by avoiding clearly biased, sensationalist journo sites like 'Aljazeera'.

Man, what's this place coming to when all we seem to get is questions about reviewing either purely pseudoscientific authors, seeking to obtain revenues from book-sales, or political journalistic websites ?

:shrug:

Isn't the bias obvious before one even reads the article ?

Does anyone bother to check the source of information before accepting the content ?
:shrug:

[xelasnave]

What's this place coming to.?.? Its great;);):thumbsup:. ..bias is not always obvious nor are all adgehdahs apparent and it is easy to be conned so pointing that out can't be a bad thing. ... Android Craig you should be happy to have part of the job of pointing that out

[Brian W]

To answer some of your objections;

In opposition to your 'opinion' of AJE many people find it a credible source of information. Perhaps you should check the credentials of its contributors and on staff personnel.

So you decided without even reading the article that it was biased and unworthy of serious consideration. Perhaps if you had read it you would have found the following information informative...

Gundersen, a licensed reactor operator with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, managing and coordinating projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the US, says the Fukushima nuclear plant likely has more exposed reactor cores than commonly believed.

As for does anyone even check the source of information, gee maybe that's what I was attempting to do?

Anyway, cheers and have a good one.
Brian

[CraigS]

Now look Alex ..

I don't mind being called aloof ..
I don't mind being called on being opinionated ..

I don't even mind being referred to as a 'carbon based life-form' …

but dude …. just don't call me an 'Android' again …. please !!
;) :lol: :)

Cheers

[xelasnave]

It was unintentional honest but take it as a compliment Android denotes super human qualities on the positive side :D

[CraigS]

You have assumed that I did not read the article.

I did.

The way it was written, highlighted the sensationalist bias. As a matter of fact, I didn't even notice the source, until I read the article !



Brian,

As mentioned in the past, Science (and rational thinking) is not a story the last bloke told you. Even if that bloke IS your esteemed 'Dahr Jamail'. :shrug:

In the quote above, Gundersen is merely offering his opinion about the likely state of the situation .. who cares about his opinion of the likely situation ? If he doesn't know from first-hand knowledge, its irrelevant to the reality of the situation ..

(As assistance: DavidU did a whole thread on this topic in the 'General Chat Forum', when all this occurred. The links presented there, were carefully selected by all of us, to make sure we got close to the reality … many interesting and valued views were presented in the 2 Japanese nuclear reactors may be in meltdown (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73039&highlight=Japan&page=1) thread.)

The IAEA, Tepco and NY Times sites were the most accurate and factual at the time.

Cheers

[morls]

There is a program on SBS tonight at 9.35 looking at the Fukushimi incident. Very timely....

[morls]

Looks like you might be able to catch it online Brian, although it may take a day or two to be posted on the sbs site...

http://www.sbs.com.au/schedule/SBSONE/2011-06-19/SBS%20Sydney#1688916

[CraigS]

Fair enough, Carl. I think I get where you're coming from. :)

Actually, interestingly and along the same lines, I was reading this article the other day ..
Quantum physics first: Researchers observe single photons in two-slit interferometer experiment (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html)

The interesting bit is right at the end in the Abstract of the paper …



.. so there ya go … this may be a practical example of what (I think) you might be alluding to.
The trajectory has been cunningly measured by thinking around the seeming 'obstacle' of the Uncertainty Principle.
Very clever, and full marks to 'em ! ...



Great stuff !
Just goes to show that scientific 'Laws', 'Principles', 'Theories', etc are all fair game in science .. and they don't necessarily inhibit progress (unlike what many 'critics' mistakingly claim).
:)
Cheers

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=CraigS;734171]You have assumed that I did not read the article.

I did.

The way it was written, highlighted the sensationalist bias. As a matter of fact, I didn't even notice the source, until I read the article !

-well that would be your opinion and bias and I thought you wanted all parties to leave opinions and biases at the door?

As mentioned in the past, Science (and rational thinking) is not a story the last bloke told you. Even if that bloke IS your esteemed 'Dahr Jamail'.
:shrug:

-He is not my esteemed anyone or anything. He just happened to write the article. The last bloke to tell me a story about science and rational thinking is you. And I will take your recent advice so until you can show some credentials ie degrees, articles, discoveries, that make your 'definitions and or opinions the only worthy ones I just might reserve the right to disagree with you.

In the quote above, Gundersen is merely offering his opinion about the likely state of the situation .. who cares about his opinion of the likely situation ? If he doesn't know from first-hand knowledge, its irrelevant to the reality of the situation ..

- I care about his opinion because with his academic qualifications, work experience, and all around education his opinion is worth listening to. Unless I am mistaken you have no first hand experience in this situation and yet you feel capable and worthy to voice your opinion though as far as I can tell you have much less to back it up than Gunderson

(As assistance: DavidU did a whole thread on this topic in the 'General Chat Forum', when all this occurred. The links presented there, were carefully selected by all of us, to make sure we got close to the reality … many interesting and valued views were presented in the 2 Japanese nuclear reactors may be in meltdown (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73039&highlight=Japan&page=1) thread.)

- indeed I enjoyed reading the thread. These interesting and valued views were given by people with first hand experience of the situation?

The IAEA, Tepco and NY Times sites were the most accurate and factual at the time.

- well that is your opinion of the most accurate sites but you have already, and many times, said we should leave our opinions at the door so perhaps you can qualify your opinion with something to back it up?

In any case I am returning to the main discussion cause this will go nowhere.

Brian

[morls]

To continue my little research project, I want to calculate the radiation dose received after working in each of the turbine building basements for one hour, and then compare to the dosages the workers at Chernobyl received.

1 hour in turbine building 1 basement: radiation dose = 60mSv.
- 60x the recommended annual dose for general public.
- 3x the annual dose recommended for radiation workers.
- Exposure time to receive maximum annual radiation worker dose: 50min


1 hour in turbine building 2 basement: radiation dose = 1000mSv (1 Sv)
- 1000x the recommended annual dose for general public.
- 50x the annual dose recommended for radiation workers.
- 5% risk of cancer in later life
- Exposure time to receive maximum annual radiation worker dose: 3m


1 hour in turbine building 3 basement: radiation dose = 435mSv (mid point between 120 and 750mSv)
- 435x the recommended annual dose for general public.
- 22x the annual dose recommended for radiation workers.
- 0.023% risk of cancer in later life
- Exposure time to receive maximum annual radiation worker dose: 7min


Dosages received by Chernobyl workers:
Quoting from http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

"The Chernobyl accident caused many severe radiation effects almost immediately. Of 600 workers present on the site during the early morning of 26 April 1986, 134 received high doses (0.8-16 Gy) and suffered from radiation sickness. Of these, 28 died in the first three months and another 19 died in 1987-2004 of various causes not necessarily associated with radiation exposure. In addition, according to the UNSCEAR 2008 Report, the majority of the 530,000 registered recovery operation workers received doses of between 0.02 Gy and 0.5 Gy between 1986 and 1990. That cohort is still at potential risk of late consequences such as cancer and other diseases and their health will be followed closely."

As far as I can tell, Gy (Gray) and Sv (Sievert) are equivalent units.

So, 1 hour in turbine basement 2 would be equivalent to the lower end of a high dose at Chernobyl, would cause radiation sickness and have a mortality rate of up to 20.9% in the first 3 months.

1 hour in turbine basement 3 would result in radiation exposure in the upper range of that received by the majority of the workers at Chernobyl. There would be potential risk of late consequences such as cancer and other diseases.

1 hour in turbine basement 1 would result in exposure equivalent to the lower range of that received by the majority of the workers at Chernobyl. There would be potential risk of late consequences such as cancer and other diseases.

----------------
So, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the incident at Fukushima is comparable to Chernobyl in terms of potential radiation exposure of workers trying to address the situation.
----------------

I think it's probably important to quote further from the UNSCEAR webpage:

"The Chernobyl accident also resulted in widespread radioactive contamination in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine inhabited by several million people. In addition to causing radiation exposure, the accident caused long-term changes in the lives of the people living in the contaminated districts, since the measures intended to limit radiation doses included resettlement, changes in food supplies and restrictions on the activities of individuals and families...

(The second sentence above would also be the case in Japan....)

For the last two decades, attention has been focused on investigating the association between exposure caused by radionuclides released in the Chernobyl accident and late effects, in particular thyroid cancer in children. Doses to the thyroid received in the first few months after the accident were particularly high in those who were children and adolescents at the time in Belarus, Ukraine and the most affected Russian regions and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2005, more than 6,000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake. It is expected that the increase in thyroid cancer incidence due to the Chernobyl accident will continue for many more years, although the long-term increase is difficult to quantify precisely.

Among Russian recovery operation workers with higher doses there is emerging evidence of some increase in the incidence of leukaemia. However, based on other studies, the annual incidence of radiation-induced leukaemia would be expected to fall within a few decades after exposure. In addition, recent studies of the recovery operation workers indicate that opacities of the eye lens might be caused by relatively low radiation doses.

Among the 106 patients surviving radiation sickness, complete normalization of health took several years. Many of those patients developed clinically significant radiation-induced cataracts in the first few years after the accident. Over the period 1987-2006, 19 survivors died for various reasons; however, some of these deaths were due to causes not associated with radiation exposure.

The present understanding of the late effects of protracted exposure to ionizing radiation is limited, since the dose-response assessments rely heavily on studies of exposure to high doses and animal experiments. Studies of the Chernobyl accident exposure might shed light on the late effects of protracted exposure, but given the low doses received by the majority of exposed individuals, any increase in cancer incidence or mortality will be difficult to detect in epidemiological studies.

Conclusions (this is also on UNESCEAR site)

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail."

I'm sorry if I'm putting up too much information...I can get a bit carried away when things capture my attention.

[jeff65]

morls,

Thanks for posting that data.

It's important to note that published exposure guidelines are for external radiation sources. If a person ingests or inhales a radioactive particle the situation is a great deal worse.

The intensity of the radiation is inversely proportional with the square of the distance to the source. If you've swallowed a particle I think it's safe to say you're very near the source. You'll also be hit by every decay.

I think that the official safety statements comparing the risk to humans with that of background radiation or chest x-rays is definitely soft pedalling the issue.

If someone really wanted to know something about what happened at the time, there were many commentators at various web sites (The Oil Drum was one) who were interpreting the officially released data and painting a picture much worse than officially acknowledged. The un-official analysts often later turned out to be correct.

There were plenty of analysts saying that the data released by official sources showed core meltdowns were likely within a day or two of the initial incident. TEPCO acknowledged this only in the last few weeks!

The situation described by the Al Jazeera article is nothing radical. I'd say it could be more thorough but none of it would surprise anyone actually following the situation beyond the major media outlets.

[sjastro]

I'd be more concerned about false vacuums.
Harnessing ZPE in a false vacuum can be bad for your health.:(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_metastability_event#Vacuum_m etastability_event

Regards

Steven

[morls]

Hi Jeff,



So this would account for the large numbers of thyroid cancer cases associated with Chernobyl?

I've followed up on what I'd half-remembered about the radiation exposure guidelines being changed following the incident at Fukushima. On April 29th 2011 Fukushima school authorities were informed the allowable dose for children would be increased from 1mSv/year to 20mSv/year.

I found the website for Physicians For Social Responsibility, who in 1985 won the Nobel Peace Prize. I'll quote their statement made April 29, 2011, and attach a .pdf




"April 29, 2011

PSR Statement on the Increase of Allowable Dose of Ionizing Radiation
to Children in Fukushima Prefectur

It is the consensus of the medical and scientific community, summarized in the US National Academies’ National Research Council report Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII (BEIR VII report, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X), that there is no safe level of radiation. Any exposure, including exposure to naturally occurring background radiation, creates an increased risk of cancer. Moreover, not all people exposed to radiation are affected equally. Children are much more vulnerable than adults to the effects of radiation, and fetuses are even more vulnerable. It is unconscionable to increase the allowable dose for children to 20 millisieverts (mSv). Twenty mSv exposes an adult to a one in 500 risk of getting cancer; this dose for children exposes them to a 1 in 200 risk of getting cancer. And if they are exposed to this dose for two years, the risk is 1 in 100. There is no way that this level of exposure can be considered "safe" for children."




From the JAIF Status of Countermeasures report dated 18/6/11 I uploaded earlier, these are the situations listed as "Severe (need immediate attention):"

- Reactors 1, 2 and 3 Core Integrity: Damaged (core melt)
- Reactors 1, 2 and 3 Core Cooling: Not functioning

- Reactors 1, 2, 3 and 4 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling: Not functioning

- Scattering of radioactive materials to the outside of the facility: Radioactive materials and radioactively contaminated debris scattered due to the hydrogen explosion at Unit 1 and 3 R/Bs (reactor buildings) and other events.

In addition, the fuel integrity status of the nuclear material in the spent fuel pools is unknown for all 4 reactors.

The status of the Reactor Pressure Vessels in reactors 2 and 3 is unknown. Damage and leakage is suspected in the Primary Containment Vessels of reactors 1, 2 and 3.

[morls]

Here's the PSR statement...

[xelasnave]

My emotions have taken over It scares me and yet I am not sure I am being rational.
alex

[CraigS]

Interesting … sounds quite nasty !

I notice that cosmic ray collisions observed ~ 10^20 eV or 10^14 eV (depending on which source one looks at .. that's 0.999c !), have been predicted to be matched in particle accelerators by 2150 (John Leslie, 1998 (1998). "The End of the World:The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction.").

.. an adventuresome prediction .. but there ya go, Carl !

Expulsion events from AGNs seem much more likely .. don't know about containing that one, though. :question:
:)
.. But do we live in a false vacuum, anyway ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

I was waiting for someone to mention this:)

Could be bad for everyone's health!!!.

[Brian W]

please continue to post... every one here has their own interests but for me this is the 'stuff' I had hoped my original post would solicit.
Brian

[Brian W]

the AP has a new story that seems to fit into this discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_aging_nukes_part1

[xelasnave]

I am speechless thanks for the link
Alex

[bojan]

Well... if THAT happens, no-one will feel a thing.

And if you think about it a bit more, it could have happened already.. many times.. and the Universe started again and here we are again.. by pure chance - with same memories... thinking absolutely nothing happened in the meantime.

[Brian W]

Careful Bojan you are almost sounding like me ;)
Brian

[jeff65]

Updates:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/guest-post-global-nuclear-update.html

Of particular interest to me was the Science magazine article indicating that concerned Japanese scientists were doing their own radiation monitoring:

"It shows one wide belt of radiation reaching 225 kilometers south from the stricken reactors to Tokyo and another extending to the southwest. Within those belts are localized hot spots, including an oval that encloses northeast Tokyo and Kashiwa and neighboring cities in Chiba Prefecture."

Unfortunately the original Science article is behind a paywall.

Another site with roughly weekly updates:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/06/fukushima-update-june-18.html

If you want to know how some analysts were putting together the reported facts in the early stages of the incident, read the earlier updates from Moon Of Alabama.

[CraigS]

… Safer nuclear on the way …
New pint sized particle accelerator leads the way to clean nuclear energy (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-pint-sized-particle-nuclear-energy.html)



Cheers
PS: Must we continue with two identical threads ?? If so, I move that this one should focus on science/technology and leave the politics for the General Chat thread.

[renormalised]

An universal "groundhog day":):P

Where's Bill Murray when you need him:):P

[morls]

I agree. The subject of this thread is "Japanese nuke problems". We are trying to discuss the current scientific data surrounding the incident in Japan. Part of this involves getting up to date and accurate information, and pooling our collective efforts to try and form an informed and impartial understanding of what is going on.

There is a lot of other noise going on in this thread. May I respectfully suggest we confine our posts to the topic as put forward by Brain W when he created this thread. If this is boring people they don't have to participate.

Cheers

Stephen

[morls]

Actually, looking at the description of this forum

(Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Amateur Contributions to Astronomy Science, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please.)

makes me wonder... is the realm of this particular forum amateur science only as it relates to astronomy, astrophysics and all things space?

I think I need to make sure I'm clear about each forum, and so not cluttering the space with irrelevant (to that particular forum's topic area) posts, so if one of the mods could clarify for me that'd be great.

Stephen