China Syndrome in Japan?

That map looks like alarmest nonsense. Pretending that it isn't....

750 RADS doesn't define the dose very well, but from what I remember from the Air Force and a Nuclear Engineering course in college, both a long time ago, well over 50% fatalities would be expected.

Even 300 REMs is bad juju, about 50% fatalities.'.

I think that chart is very bogus or we would have heard more about it. There are thousands of people that understand radiation hazards far better than I do that would be sounding off loud and clear if the map were remotely possibly valid..

You need to convert RADs to REM to make any sense of the numbers, but IIRC, Rad x Q=REM and Q is always greater than one for radiation.

 

It came directly out of someones dark smelly warm moist place.

snopes.com: Nuclear Fallout Map

Like I said in the previous post before I found the Snopes article, those numbers say that well over 1/2 the people on the West Coast of the US are going to die from this. I don't believe that.

 

^ Yeah, I just found the video on YouTube where the map was taken... More disinformation on the net.

 

The radiation spread map Ken posted a page ago is a fake. Here is a real science blog about crappy information such as that (with the same map in it as the example).

 

REM is an old unit. Generally the Sievert is now used:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert"]Sievert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Tom

 

It most certainly can.

 

My last serious involvement with ionizing radiation calculations was over 40 years ago, but since it seems like most of the reporting I am seeing in the US is in RAD, so I will still stick with RAD and REM.

1 Gray = 100 RAD
1 Sievert = 100 REM

I have also noticed that the US NRC uses units like in this example this " below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv)".

 

I'm sure you know this, but to avoid confusing others I should point out that the above equations are only approximations which deal with standard or nominal conditions. For example, the sievert and the gray share the same dimensions, but they measure different quantities. The gray measures the adsorbed dose while the sievert measures the biological equivalent.

This is much like temperature and wind chill. Both are measured in degrees, but while temperature gives you the actual physical temperature, wind chill gives you an idea of the effect of that temperature given the current conditions.

Tom

 

And Switzerland, and China, and now Germany. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, is 'calling time' on the nuclear age, announcing a measured exit from nuclear power.

Does the US want more manufacturing? Does it still want to be a world leader? The time is right to go full scale production on solar, wind, and geothermal.

 

1 Gray = 100 RAD
1 Sievert = 100 REM

I think you know that those equations are correct as I stated them, but that's not what you said. Responding to what you said...Both are simple conversions from CGS to MKS and are exactly correct.

To elaborate on your apt windchill analogy,

Sievert = Gray x Q
REM=Rad x Q

Where Q is a finagle factor that varies from 1 for x-rays, beta rays up to 20 for Alpha particles.

.

 

I bet the tortoises are not happy.

Mojave Desert Blog: Sierra Club Lawsuit Targets Calico Solar Power Project

 

There is no perfect solution. Hydroelectric is renewable, on-demand and essentially pollution-free. But it destroys habitat, blocks migrating fish, and displaces people. Wind is good, but variable, not always by population centers and some people don't like the view; solar is also variable and generally more expensive, photovoltaic doesn't work in the evening or night (but solar thermal does). Nuclear has a variety of radiation risks, plus the uranium mining (all require some mining though, to be honest). I like geothermal, always on and renewable, but it is moderately expensive, can use a lot of water, doesn't work well on the east coast and some people say it may cause small earthquakes. The other options (natural gas, coal, petroleum) are fossil fuels that add to air pollution and green house gases, natural gas is probably the best of the 3 (less destruction on the surface than coal, less subservance of our economy to unfriendly countries than petroleum).

Bottom line: we'll probably need to use all of these options for the foreseeable future, hopefully in places where they're most appropriate. There's real promise in GM algae that produces oil, and wind turbines on kites that fly up near the jet-stream. Also better electrical grids that can adapt to changing energy sources as wind and clouds move from one state to another. Maybe someday we'll get nuclear fusion working, instead of today's fission. Other than the expense, I'm not sure if that has any significant downsides. I'm still rather skeptical of the idea of beaming down power from space in giant microwave receiver/transmitters.

 

No ONE perfect solution, no. But a combination of power sources could replace our current dependency on petroleum and plutonium. It's not necessary to invest in solar and wind and hydro for every building - large power plants feeding into the grid would work. Areas 'blessed' with lots of rainfall can invest in hydro, areas with abundant sunshine can invest in solar, and so on. There will always be pros and cons, but renewables look much better in the long run than what we've got now.

 

We have given up that years ago. We are now a service oriented nation. Would you like fries with that?

 

Due to habitat destruction and decimated migratory fish populations, the U.S. mainland isn't going to get much more hydro power.

I don't know about BC, but south of the border, the dam building era is nearly over. Some small ones have already been removed, and there is some continuing political pressure to remove several large ones.

 

BC may be about to embark on a dam-building renaissance, at least if the government gets its way. 'Site C' as it's known - what would be the third dam on the Peace River - is understandably opposed by the people who live there. Hydroelectric is not exactly benign, but it's considerably 'less bad' than many alternatives.

 

Yes, you are correct. I meant to comment on the conversion of sievert to gray, which you have done above.

Tom