MJP Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Here is a live geiger counter in Tokyo http://www.ustream.t...r-counter-tokyo and another live geiger counter in Chiba (10km North East of Tokyo) http://www.ustream.t...r-counter-chiba Anyone know how to interpret the data? TheWalkingMan The reading you're seeing is CPM (counts per minute). Multiply by 10 for microsieverts per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Japan needs that big glass dome they had in the Simpson's movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the plants in question, from what Ive read, were designed based on govt standards to withstand waves of 5 to 6 meters. these clearly exceeded that That said, it doesnt excuse how they allowed one of the reactor pumps post quake to runout of fuel becuz they werent monitoring it..and thus the reactor ran dry... That explanation, given by the govt publicly, is kind of hard to figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETatBKK Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 10 medical staff start to 'inspect' everyone in the temporary shelters who came from within 20km radius from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. people are lining up queues and they are very tensed. ( can imagine ! ) translated : www.asahi.com Mar 15, 2011 at 21.18h JST http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0315/TKY201103150398.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnSvenskTiger Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Those nuclear plants where designe by GE in the 60s and built in the 70s. How would we regard a car, airplane or ship of similar age? Why is it possible that they are still running? Dont tell me, economic! If we had put that Q to the boardmembers a week ago they would have lauged in our face and showed us the W/Yen overhead. Vely goood! Not! Tiger BTW a huge thank you to all participating in delivering the swift and interesting news in this thread!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Here is a live geiger counter in Tokyo http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo and another live geiger counter in Chiba (10km North East of Tokyo) http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-chiba Anyone know how to interpret the data? ... From Wikipedia: Symptom BenchmarksEffects to humans of acute radiation (within one day): 0–0.25 Sv: None 0.25–1 Sv: Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged. 1–3 Sv: Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured. 3–6 Sv: Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, skin peels, sterility; death if untreated. 6–10 Sv: Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected. Above 10 Sv: Incapacitation and death. To calculate the daily radiation dose, take the reading in µSv/h, multiply it by 24 and divide it by 1,000,000 and the result will be Sv per day, ie the current reading of 0.15 µSv/h equals 0.0000036 SV per day. At least this is how I believe the calculation is done. When the reading is 10417 µSv/h the level of 0.25 Sv per day, where symptoms can start, will have been reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Here is a live geiger counter in Tokyo http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo and another live geiger counter in Chiba (10km North East of Tokyo) http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-chiba Anyone know how to interpret the data? The Chiba one is in µSv/hour, in this case about .14 µSv/hour. The Tokyo one is about 17 CPM (counts per minute). 200CPM = 2µSv therefore 17CPM = .17µSv 10-20CPM is around normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 That said, it doesnt excuse how they allowed one of the reactor pumps post quake to runout of fuel becuz they werent monitoring it..and thus the reactor ran dry... Just a guess but I imagine the people looking after the pumps are trying not to get a gamma ray suntan, and are probably sheltering somewhere in between observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the reactor no 1, which was the first to have trouble, has been in service 40 years, and was due to be shut down this month... But shortly before the quake, according to media reports, the govt granted a 10 license extension. The Daiichi plants have, though, been upgraded thru the years since their orig opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The reading you're seeing is CPM (counts per minute). Multiply by 10 for microsieverts per hour. I don't think so. From TheFreeDictionary: Counts per minute (cpm) is a measure of radioactivity. It is the number of atoms in a given quantity of radioactive material that are detected to have decayed in one minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETatBKK Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Japanese government releases the radiation levels in all provinces, table in PDF in Japanese. interesting the Fukushima and the Ibaraki are empty ! also attached in the site is a graphic PDF file, explain the effect of radiation to human health, in Japanese but easy to understand. turn on your Google Translate !! http://eq.sakura.ne.jp/ Mar 15, 2011 at 13.30h JST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnSvenskTiger Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Dont know if reported already but the incident is now a 6 on a7 grade scale. Tjernobyl was 7. Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The reading you're seeing is CPM (counts per minute). Multiply by 10 for microsieverts per hour. I don't think so. From TheFreeDictionary: Counts per minute (cpm) is a measure of radioactivity. It is the number of atoms in a given quantity of radioactive material that are detected to have decayed in one minute. I really should learn not to trust the internet. Converting from counts to a dose . . . Is there a way to convert a radiation reading on a meter from a count-per-minute rate to a rad, rem, or mrem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETatBKK Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 what scale is this ? further info ? Fukushima Dai Ichi incident at this stage, may be too early to project the damage . . . Dont know if reported already but the incident is now a 6 on a7 grade scale. Tjernobyl was 7. Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Is there a way to convert a radiation reading on a meter from a count-per-minute rate to a rad, rem, or mrem? I believe the talk was about count-per-minute and microSievert, and Tywais gave the correct answer about the conversion here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Is there a way to convert a radiation reading on a meter from a count-per-minute rate to a rad, rem, or mrem? I believe the talk was about count-per-minute and microSievert, and Tywais gave the correct answer about the conversion here: http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4284322 Not that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Those nuclear plants where designe by GE in the 60s and built in the 70s. How would we regard a car, airplane or ship of similar age? Why is it possible that they are still running? Because they are designed to operate a little bit longer than your Scoopy-i. Of the 104 plants now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulianLS Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 It is quite surprising that they haven't been shipping in as many generators, pumps, and fuel as they can.... Full marks to the guys at Fushima Daini (Fukushima II).... 4 reactors at cold shutdown with no venting and no explosions. The job that those guys did has not received the praise it deserves I feel. They deserve medals! Let's face it, the two plants are very similar, and given the proximity and similar locations, they probably got the same earthquake magnitude and same tsunami wave. Yet one plant is still struggling with at least 4 reactors (one of which was shut down already), if not all 6, whilst the other has achieved an exemplary shut down of all 4 reactors. One has to put that down to better leadership and better management of the situation at Fukushima Daini. They could do a lot worse than take the top guys from Daini and put them in charge of Daiichi...... as pointed out on this thread, the Daiichi guys seemed to have made a number of apparent 'mistakes' that perhaps could have been avoided. Reminiscent of Chernobyl....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattayasnowman Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 nuclear reactors, whether designed to "breed" or not, produce plutonium. ... Reactor 3 is now in total meltdown, Once the molten core 'burns' through the containment vessel it will hit the water table. The result a massive explosion (non nuclear) and corresponding gas cloud of Radioactive particles including plutonium238 that has a half life of 87.7 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahmburgers Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 That said, it doesnt excuse how they allowed one of the reactor pumps post quake to runout of fuel becuz they werent monitoring it..and thus the reactor ran dry... Just a guess but I imagine the people looking after the pumps are trying not to get a gamma ray suntan, and are probably sheltering somewhere in between observations. I suspect that the remaining workers at the site are going through major trauma. When do they sleep? Each one knows, just by being at the site, they're putting their lives in danger. I'm sure lots of emotional scenarios. I don't think it's right for us to sit back in our comfy computer chairs from hundreds of miles away, and belittle their efforts. Example: generators powering pumps running out of fuel. It could have been negligence, but I think it's more likely they simply didn't have enough fuel on hand. How many thousands of liters of fuel would you predict would be needed at a nuclear power facility - before the earthquake struck? Sure, it's easy to be Monday morning quarterbacks, but those guys are like the Kamikaze fighters of WWII, literally putting their lives on the line to try and make the best of a dire situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopburi3 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Let's face it, the two plants are very similar, and given the proximity and similar locations, they probably got the same earthquake magnitude and same tsunami wave. Not necessary. The first reports are that the entry harbor geography played a huge role in how large the final wave was so one site could have had half what another site had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Not that simple Yes, like one poster in the thread about gamma rays you cited said, this type of conversion is "hand-waving style", ie some assumptions about some averages have to be made. Check out page 17 of this operating manual of a nuclear radiation monitor and you see a table equating 100 CPM with 1 µSv. Go and argue with the manufacturer of that apparatus if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Not that simple Yes, like one poster in the thread about gamma rays you cited said, this type of conversion is "hand-waving style", ie some assumptions about some averages have to be made. Check out page 17 of this operating manual of a nuclear radiation monitor and you see a table equating 100 CPM with 1 µSv. Go and argue with the manufacturer of that apparatus if you like. Steady down. Why so rude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siampolee Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Sadly the truth of the matter is that the Japanese government are being very economical with the truth. I would also venture that they are not the only government complicit in , ''gilding the lily.'' Such actions not only endanger the unfortunate victims of this catastrophe but also the world at large. The acknowledged radiation count figures are reaching new highs as each day passes. The world needs to know the truth, weather patterns will distribute the toxic clouds of radio active elements around our world so quickly. The oceans currents will help to spread the toxic contamination into the food chain as will the weather by rainfall. We need to know the truth so as we are able as individuals to try to lessen the impact on our lives and the lives of our children and their children. The effects of toxic radioactive atomic fallout is for centuries not just a short time. Edited March 15, 2011 by siampolee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 ...Let's face it, the two plants are very similar, and given the proximity and similar locations, they probably got the same earthquake magnitude and same tsunami wave... I believe at Fukushima I, but not at Fukushima II, the tsunami wave put the diesel generators out of commission and they were cooling with battery power first until replacement generators were brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Steady down. Why so rude? You multiplied by 10 instead of dividing by 100. You repeatedly doubted the conversion factor given by Tywais who, I happen to know, knows what he is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulianLS Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Let's face it, the two plants are very similar, and given the proximity and similar locations, they probably got the same earthquake magnitude and same tsunami wave. Not necessary. The first reports are that the entry harbor geography played a huge role in how large the final wave was so one site could have had half what another site had. I understand your point and I did consider that..... a quick look at Google earth showed that the harbour geographies and orientations wrt the wave direction are almost identical...... but then, there is always a random element to everything, so maybe one did get hit worse than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETatBKK Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 it is absolutely a chaotic situation with these remaining workers, in both physical and emotional challenges. it is not necessarily their own fault, they may be just asked to deal with the run down there. probably, they could understand they will not be able to go back in a healthy condition. pray for them ! I suspect that the remaining workers at the site are going through major trauma. When do they sleep? Each one knows, just by being at the site, they're putting their lives in danger. I'm sure lots of emotional scenarios. I don't think it's right for us to sit back in our comfy computer chairs from hundreds of miles away, and belittle their efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Is there a way to convert a radiation reading on a meter from a count-per-minute rate to a rad, rem, or mrem? I believe the talk was about count-per-minute and microSievert, and Tywais gave the correct answer about the conversion here: http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4284322 Not that simple You're correct, it's not that simple as the mechanism is different and varies depending on calibration. I made an educated guess based on my experience in nuclear physics as to the scaling factors for that particular device and application. I've used rem/rad for most of my career and began using Sieverts when I bought a portable detector for our linear accelerator lab though our best detector is in (m)rem (older, expensive model). My interpolation puts it in close agreement with the Chiba measurements which is in µSv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." ... The above post on the blog of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT explains in great detail and in terms understandable by non-scientists what has been happening a Fukushima and what measures have been taken and why. Worth reading, even though it is quite long. Yes a useful bit of info there. Didn't stop me worrying, but it did make more clear what may be happening. I also found the article very interesting. I was curious so I Googled the Josef guy. The "article" was from an email written to calm worried family members. Appears to have gone viral and upset a lot of people. More to the story: http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-researchers-and-staff/oehmen-josef http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/15/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts