I get mail:
German physicist Peter Heller wrote a passionate plea for a return to science on the nuclear power issue, published in German here: http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/fukushima/004149/
With Dr. Heller’s permission, I’ve translated it in English. But having gone over the content, I think his plea is worthy of a much wider audience – more than what NTZ can offer. So I send this to you with the kind request that you consider publishing it at WUWT.
Best regards,
P Gosselin
——————————————–
German physicist Peter Heller makes a passionate plea for a return to science on the nuclear energy issue. He wonders if ignorance and fear will cause us to abandon the legacies of Einstein, Heisenberg and others.
Fukushima
By Dr Peter Heller, http://www.science-skeptical.de
Astronomer, Physicist
There’s no place on earth I would rather be right now than at Fukushima – right in the atomic power plant, at the centre of the event. I say this because I am a physicist and there is no other place that could be more exciting and interesting for a physicist. The same goes for many, if not most physicists and engineers, on the planet.
Already at a young age I knew one day I would study physics. As a boy, I received a telescope for Christmas, and from that point on my view was fixed on the night sky; gazing at star clusters, nebula and galaxies was my favourite preoccupation. It was only later that I learned that these lights and the twinkling in eyepiece were actually the expressions of a chaotic and violent force of nature – the direct conversion of matter into energy during the fusion of an atomic nucleus.
My curiosity carried me, as if on a high, through 10 semesters of study and subsequent graduation. It was a time of discovery that involved the tedious task of understanding. At times I felt exasperation and self doubt with respect to the sheer complexity and breadth of what there was to learn. Yet, there were times of joy whenever the fog lifted and the clarity and beauty of physical descriptions of natural phenomena moved in its place. It was a time that, unfortunately, passed all too quickly and is now some years in the past.
The great minds that accompanied me through my studies were Planck, Sommerfeld, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and a host of others who, for us physicists, are still very much alive today. They are great thinkers who contributed to unravelling the puzzles of nature and the forces which keep the world together through the most minute structures. I devoured the stories of Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, of Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller – to name a few – and on how they created completely new technologies from theoretical concepts, how the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom could be used for the good of man and how it became possible in a single process to tap into this source of affordable, clean and plentiful energy on a large scale as never seen by man. Electricity illuminates our world, drives our machines, allow us to communicate over great distances, thus making our lives easier and more comfortable. It is a source of energy that staves off poverty and enables prosperity.
Electricity: manufactured by splitting atomic nuclei with neutrons, gained through the direct conversion of mass into energy. It is the principle by which (via the reverse process of fusion) the stars twinkle in the night sky, a principle by which our sun enables life on our planet.
As a physicist it fills me with great joy and pride to see how man is able to rouse this force of nature at the most minute structural level, then amplify, control, and use it for our benefit. As a physicist I have the fundamental understanding of the processes – I can imagine them and describe them. As a physicist I have neither fear of an atomic power plant nor of radioactivity. Ultimately I know that it is a natural phenomenon that is always around us, one we can never escape – and one that we never need to escape. And I know the first as a symbol of man’s capability to steer the forces of nature. As a physicist I have no fear of what nature has to offer. Rather I have respect. And this respect beckons us to seize the chances like those offered by neutrons, which can split nuclei and thus convert matter into energy. Anything else would be ignorance and cowardice.
Dark times in history
There were times in history when ignorance and cowardice overshadowed human life. It was a time when our ancestors were forced to lead a life filled with superstition and fear because it was forbidden to use creativity and fantasy. Religious dogma, like the earth being the centre of the universe, or creationism, forbade people to question. The forbiddance of opening a human body and examining it prevented questions from being answered. Today these medieval rules appear backwards and close-minded. We simply cannot imagine this way of thinking could have any acceptance.
But over the recent days I have grown concerned that we are headed again for such dark times. Hysterical and sensationalist media reporting, paired with a remarkably stark display of ignorance of technical and scientific interrelations, and the attempt by a vast majority of journalists to fan the public’s angst and opposition to nuclear energy – pure witch-burning disguised as modernity.
Freedom of research
So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.
The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami. Here again one has to remind us that Fukushima was first hit by an unimaginable 9.0 earthquake and then by a massive 10-meter wave of water just an hour later. As a result, the facility no longer found itself in a highly technological area, but surrounded by a desert of rubble. All around the power plant the infrastructure, residential areas, traffic routes, energy and communication networks are simply no longer there. They were wiped out. Yet, after an entire week, the apocalypse still has not come to pass. Only relatively small amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out and have had only a local impact. If one considers the pure facts exclusively, i.e. only the things we really know, then it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media. One can only arrive to one conclusion: This sorrowful state will remain so.
In truth, this does not show that the ideologically motivated, fear-laden admonitions and warnings were correct. Fukushima illustrates that we are indeed able to control atomic energy. Fukushima shows that we can master it even when natural disasters beyond planning befall us. Still, at Fukushima the conflict between human creativity/competence continues to clamour against the bond energy in atomic nuclei. It’s a struggle that that shows what human intelligence, knowledge gained, passion, boldness, respect, and capability to learn allow us to do. Personally this does not fill me with apprehension, but with hope. Man can meet this challenge not only because he has to, but most of all because he wants to.
Even though I have not practiced physics for some time now, I will never be anything other than a scientist and researcher, and there would be no other place I would rather be than on site at Fukushima. There is no other place at the moment where so much can be learned about atomic energy, which keeps our world together deep inside, and the technical possibilities to benefit from it. Do we have the courage to learn? Do we accept – with respect and confidence – the opportunities we are confronted with? Fukushima will show us possibilities on how to use the direct conversion of matter into energy in a better and safer way, something that Einstein and others could have only dreamed of.
I am a physicist. My wish is to live in a world that is willing to learn and to improve whatever is good. I would only like to live in a world where great strides in physics are viewed with fascination, pride, and hope because they show us the way to a better future. I would only like to live in a world that has the courage for a better world. Any other world for me is unacceptable. Never. That’s why I am going to fight for this world, without ever relenting.
————————————————–
Translated from the German, with the permission of Peter Heller, by Bernd Felsche and Pierre Gosselin. Original text appeared here: http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/fukushima/004149/
Lady Life Grows says:
March 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm
“As an adult male, you have much less risk, Dr. Heller, than the general public. By far the worst risks are to developing embryos.”
I’d never considered that before but you are of course correct. Ionizing radiation causes DNA damage. In cells that are differentiating (stem cells) into many different and diverse tissue types all the downline cells will replicate the damage. So damage that might not matter to a pancreatic cell might be quite critical to a brain cell and it won’t be just one brain cell but all of them if it’s early enough in development. That’s why all sorts of drugs deemed safe for adults carry warnings for pregnant women and young children.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 10:46 am: “…To wit the many unscientific or pseudo-scientific views being peddled with great force and conviction, complete with personal threats and attacks. Sad, indeed….”
No, it’s not that exactly, it’s more like fear of witchcraft. This insidious thing – invisible, killing and mutating all it comes in contact with – a story stoked by media and greenies about how an insignificant rise in something 98% of us don’t understand very well (or at all), but 100% of us know can be very dangerous (witness Hiroshima), and further it’s totally controlled by a bunch of corrupt, lying bastards — well, there you have the horror story of nuclear power (thanks, Jane Fonda, and it might actually be worth watching The China Syndrome again, for the portrayal of the media).
Just read the comments above by Amino Acids (you’ve watched The Day after Tomorrow too many times) and Roger Sowell. That’s the sad thing.
Correction (or is this an update?) – last month (Feb. 2011) Fukushima I reactor #1 (yes, the very same one that ‘blew’ a weak ago Saturday, exposing a steel truss top structure vs reinforced concrete as in units 3 and 4 … not sure about #2 yet) had been renewed for 10 more years of operation …
Source: AP story via Yahoo: http://ph.news.yahoo.com/bungling-cover-ups-define-japanese-nuclear-power-20110317-003736-287.html
.
a) Did you happen to view any of the higher-resolution sat pictures from DigitalGlobe (also via stratfor.com)?
The later pictures where the contrast was a little better … did you notice a tank blocking the road just to the north of turbine building #1? It *was* at one time next to the seawater in the lagoon/pier area (situated for easy filling via a small sea-going tanker?)
b) Have you seen any of the pictures taken on the ground at the reactor complex?
Just curious what your reference-base was in making your debris assessment …
.
I won’t aim this at specific posters here, because to do so would make for a very long postin.
For all of you who are so apprehensive about the dangers of nuclear power, here is a good solution. I will say up front that I hold down my use of energy and of other resources. That is because I’m not a big fan of waste. I’ve been told that is because my parents grew up during the depression. (Both of them were born in the 1920s.)
Anyway, here’s your solution. Go find the composition of the power generation for your utility. Such things are readily available online. No, I’m not going to tell you how to do it. I found it, so you should be able to, also. Once you have the percentage of power from nuclear plants, all you need to do is to cut your usage by that percentage permanently. Then you can have the delirious thrill of not supporting those nukes.
My personal choice is to accept that danger, as I am quite aware of what the risks are and aren’t.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 11:12 am
Max Hugoson says:
March 20, 2011 at 10:44 am
the “sea wall” is going to have to be: 14 meters high.
One might wonder about the rationale in a tsunami-prone country to build power plants on the coast…
Leif, while I agree with you, I would worry more about why they hadn’t considered changes to the design of the reactor that required external power in order to run the water pumps that cooled the reactors. I understand that there is a design that doesn’t require the use of outside electricity.
The problem with nuclear power isn’t the highly publicised accidents that can’t be covered up, it’s the hundreds of small incidents that we are lied to about and the political corruption.
Labour and the nuclear lobby
Anti-nuclear campaigners like to portray the government as being in the pocket of the nuclear industry. How else, they argue, do you explain the return to favour of an industry once written-off as dirty, dangerous and prohibitively expensive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5149676.stm
German abandonment of nuclear power
In 2000, the German government, consisting of the SPD and Alliance ’90/The Greens officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear power. Jürgen Trittin (from the German Greens) as the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country’s nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of civil usage of nuclear power by 2020.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
Higher cancer risk for children near nuclear power plants found in Germany
A new study on behalf of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection is the first study to show reliable results: the risk of children under 5 years of age to contract leukaemia increases the closer they live to a nuclear power plant. This is the result of an investigation of the German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) in Mainz carried out on behalf of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection. The investigation concludes that in the study period from 1980 to 2003, within a radius of 5 km around the reactors, 37 children contracted leukaemia. On the statistical average, 17 cases would have to be expected. About 20 cases can thus be attributed to the fact that they live within this radius.
http://www.insnet.org/ins_headlines.rxml?id=5571&photo=
Sellafield (previously known as Windscale)
Some claim that the Irish Sea remains one of the most heavily contaminated seas in the world because of these discharges.[41]
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) reports an estimated 200 kilograms (441 lbs) of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea.[42] Cattle and fish in the area are contaminated with plutonium-239 and caesium-137 from these sediments and from other sources such as the radioactive rain that fell on the area after the Chernobyl disaster. Most of the area’s long-lived radioactive technetium comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the Sellafield facility.[43]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
In 1989 Sugaoka received an order that horrified him: edit out footage showing cracks in plant steam pipes in video being submitted to regulators. Sugaoka alerted his superiors in the Tokyo Electric Power Co., but nothing happened. He decided to go public in 2000. Three Tepco executives lost their jobs.
The legacy of scandals and cover-ups over Japan’s half-century reliance on nuclear power has strained its credibility with the public. That mistrust has been renewed this past week with the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant. No evidence has emerged of officials hiding information in this catastrophe. But the vagueness and scarcity of details offered by the government and Tepco — and news that seems to grow worse each day — are fueling public anger and frustration.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iU29-CtBza8xA01r9IzPwksyP1WQ?docId=9e518d4998224fd8b705cc3fe9903eb6
People who are against nuclear power are currently extremely preoccupied with trying to find out how many people may have died because of the accident at Fukushima. They also compare it with other nuclear accidents – counting the dead, counting the dead…
People who are positive to nuclear power try to weigh the risks of nuclear power versus other risks, either other kinds of energy sources, or flying, eating bananas, getting an x-ray or CT, etc.
Here is a different approach.
I can safely say that in the big picture of this natural disaster, in which ONE nuclear facility plays a major part, nuclear power AS SUCH has saved tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yup. I am sure of that, one hundred percent.
The simple reason is this. Compare the earthquake and tsunami 2011 in Japan with recent ones, in Indonesia 2004 and Haiti 2010 for example. Why do you think so many more people died in Indonesia and Haiti? The Haiti earthquake claimed around 300 000 lives. It was a 7.0 magnitude quake, i.e. 100 times less than Japan 2011, and there was no tsunami of up to 23 meter waves in Haiti. Imagine, a 7 story high wall of water thundering against the shore. And yet, when all casualties are counted, we probably don’t have to count more loss of lives than one tenth or less compared to Haiti.
What is the difference then? Very simple! Japan is a rich and technologically advanced country, whereas Haiti is not.
Does anyone seriously think that Japan would have prospered the way it has in the last 40 years without nuclear power? Of course not! It is because of that prosperity that Japan has been able to develop the technology and build their houses and other civil structures strong enough to withstand earthquakes. Also to be able to afford the planning and preparation it takes to cope after it has hit. And not just this time, mind you! Earthquakes happen all the time in Japan. I have experienced one myself – the hotel room on the eighth floor where I was brutally awaken at 5 in the morning moved half a meter back and forth. No big deal… it is built to take it… Pretty scary, though!
Nuclear proponents are often charged for being technology optimists who “dream” that nuclear power can be safe. But the big optimists are those who say that in the absence of nuclear power we would have already figured out something else that we could have used instead. And no! Not coal or oil. No, no! That’s dirty! What then? “Well, we would have thought of something, surely!” Yeah, right!
There is a lot of research going on world wide in the fields of solar power and battery technology. I know, because I am involved in a small way in the fringes.
But the key is, research costs money. That needs to come from investments. Investments can only come from a surplus in the economy – a farmer cannot eat the grain he needs to sow the next season. If you live from hand to mouth, like in Haiti, you will not be making the next big technological breakthrough for future energy sources.
So what it all boils down to is this. And this is a fact.
No nuclear power today = no solar cells tomorrow.
I would like to translate to swedish for possible publication in swedish newspapers, but I am unable to find a link to Mr Heller. Can anybody assist?
It is relatively easy to build an earthquake proof structure compared to the difficulty of making a politician, or fool (are they the same?) proof structure. The most badly damaged Fukushima reactor was forty years old and not up to the safety standards of modern reactors. Why was it still running? The reactor was supposed to have been closed months ago, a good idea given the surge of seismic activity in the Pacific. Why was it kept going? The Exxon Valdez was the 53 largest oil spill in history. Every year more oil is spilled than was spilled in the Exxon Valdez. Stupidity and incompetence are not rare, they are commonplace. Given how many people blindly believe in AGW, how can anybody be sure that critical safety decisions will be made by wise people. Remember what fool proof means- it means engineered so that fools can’t make it fail. When many, if not most governments are run by scientifically illiterate people engineers really do have to make the dangerous things that they are in charge of, fool proof. Or else they have to make things that fools can’t do a lot of damage with. Enough people are aware of the dangers of making very dangerous things that some fool will inevitably be given responsibility for, that there is mounting and unstoppable backlash against the current nuclear industry. Brilliant minds should stop rallying to support big power and should switch their efforts to developing power sources with less potential for disaster when badly managed, like perhaps lithium reactors. In Canada our politicians refused to spend the money to repair our aging radionucleotide reactor and they refuse to finish the perfectly functional Mapleleaf reactor, resulting in critical radionucleotide shortages. Are these the sorts of “rational” people you want in charge of things that can do great harm? I believe reactors can be made to withstand all natural disasters except fools. Since they will never be fool proof, they must be made in a way such a way that their destructive potential is limited no matter how they are abused.
E Smith says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I did a bit of converting and normalizing.
1 milliGray = 0.001 sievert
1 microGray = 0.000001 sievert
1 nanoGray = 0.000000001 sievert
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#SI_multiples_and_conversions
Hourly dose examples
* Approximate radiation levels near Chernobyl reactor 4 and its fragments, shortly[clarification needed] after explosion are reported to be 10,000–300,000 mSv/hr
* Average individual background radiation dose: 0.23μSv/hr (0.00023mSv/hr); 0.17μSv/hr for Australians, 0.34μSv/hr for Americans[9][5][10]
From http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870
Ibaraki radiation levels: 63 – 86 nanoGray per hour (or 0.063μSv/hr to 0.086μSv/hr)
Keep in mind that Ibaraki the counters in Ibaraki are quite likely close to sea level, where natural background radiation would be much lower than in Colorado.
From http://www.radiationnetwork.com/
Radiation levels in Colorado (near Denver): ~24 – ~67 CPM (scintillation counts per minute, depending on location and elevation).
By my calculations:
1 CPM = 0.00926μSv/hr
24 CPM = 0.222μSv/hr (in Colorado)
63 CPM = 0.58338μSv/hr (in Colorado)
9.3 CPM = 0.086μSv/hr (in Ibaraki according to the map, at 2011 02 21 05:50 (JST))
12 CPM = 0.111μSv/hr (Vancouver)
10 CPM = 0,093μSv/hr (Texas)
The background radiation level at Ibaraki shown by the Japanase radiation map at http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870 is nothing out of the ordinary. It is slightly less than those for Vancouver or Texas.
However, the values shown in the table at the bottom of the map at http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870 for Ibaraki, Horiguchi Hitachinaka City are as follows:
Date and Time (JST) nGray/hr
2011 03 15 19:40 —1114
2011 03 15 23:00 —1065
2011 03 16 00:30 —1046
2011 03 16 03:10 —1030
2011 03 16 06:00 —2114
2011 03 16 17:40 —1044
2011 03 16 19:50 —1029
2011 03 16 23:50 —1011
2011 03 17 03:00 — 993
2011 03 17 16:40 — 881
2011 03 17 19:20 — 876
2011 03 17 21:40 — 872
2011 03 18 01:00 — 856
2011 03 18 03:00 — 847
2011 03 18 20:50 — 760
2011 03 19 01:00 — 749
2011 03 20 06:50 — 637
2011 03 20 08:40 — 631
2011 03 20 17:40 — 639
2011 03 21 04:20 —1635
2011 03 21 05:50 —2040
Those values are the equivalent of the range from 631μSv/hr to 2,040μSv/hr, considerably higher than what would be normal levels of background radiation. Still, as of now no one knows for how long those levels will persist and whether at any point in time they will become dangerous.
It intrigues me that there is so much fear about possibly dangerous levels of radiation, but so little effort is being made to measure radiation on a regular basis and globally in many different places. Mind you, before we get to doing that, we should probably try to finish the other job, to try and come to grips with how to accurately measure temperatures. I doubt it that we can do that any time soon and that we will be able to do the much more difficult thing, measure radiation correctly in many different places without someone fudging the facts on that, too.
It is obvious from looking at the radiation map of Japan that the fudging and obfuscating is already in progress.
Nuclear and other power systems have different risks by nature. When a oil/coal/gas plant/rig/mine blows, the people killed and the pollution are near-by. A nuclear plant blows, and the stuff creates concern all over the world.
With BP people are angry. With nuclear, people are scared. That is not to say nuclear is more or less dangerous in practice.
A question for any physicists out there. What effect would a water pressure of 12919 psi have on an arbitrary group of ten spent fuel rods? In a containment cylinder?
Devil is in details, and safety too. There is a wide field for improvement in nuclear plants technology, some measures are so obvious that it is weird that nobody suggested them yet. Zirconium cladding of fuel rods should be gold-plated, to avoid chemical reaction with steam and water. The cost is negligable compared to one of making the rods, and the gold can be recovered during fuel recycling. Gold-plated “pebbles” were already proposed for other types of reactors. Stainless steel cladding is used in Hyperion Generation reactors. Heat resistant titanium tubes are also possible solution to “meltdown” problem. Large water reservoir on higher ground near the the plant, connected by tubes to spent fuel basins and reactor cooling system, can provide back-up without need to use any pumps in case of grid failure. Just open a spigot and flood all you want to. But without commitment to further progress on nuclear thechnology we would not be able to make it as safe as we want.
The first industrial power technology, even before advent of electricity, namely steam engines, also was plagued by accidents, like exploded boilers. They were made from steel sheets connected by iron rivets. And rivets got cut, when boilers were overheated. The problem was solved first by using steel rivets, safety valves and later by welding the boilers.
To be blunt and use old fashioned units.
A major core failure in a small reactor such as used in submarines might release some 10 to the twelve curies, Chernobyl probably released a thousand times this. This incident, as best can be estimated at the moment, does not seem to have to released more than than a hundred thousand curies: and more likely a tenth of that.
It was suggested that TMI released a million curies mostly in the form of noble gasses, but the estimate has never been justified and is probably overstated by a factor of a hundred times or so.
The immediate danger from such a release is radioactive iodine which although it has a short half life enters the food chain chiefly through milk. This can be dealt with by controlling the milk supply and if necessary iodine tablets. After Chernobyl the USSR did neither so perhaps a few thousand people suffered who should not have done.
Except very close to the incident there are no serious hazards.
The Japanese are very well organised to deal with disasters including nuclear ones such as this one. You should not imagine that their timely precautions are any reason for panic or that anything is much amiss.
It is all under control: it is the massive disaster and loss of life from the natural catastrophe that is of concern.
Unless of course you believe in hobgoblins and the like as credulous people do and as politicians and their ilk invent in order to enrich themselves. But there is no doing much about that I am afraid: although I have hopes the blogosphere might change things for the better.
Kindest Regards
@ur momisugly Walter Schneider
Seems you need to correct the last portion of your comment above. The table above you gave is in nGray/hr (nano) but your following words are speaking of μSv/hr (micro) and you assume greater than background levels, not so. Your chart reports the equivalent of 2.5 μSv/hr to 8.2 μSv/hr even if the worst weighting factors are used as a full 20 * 0.20 = 4.
use: 1 μSv/hr = 1000 nGray/hr * WeightingFactor
(or that is what your link to Wikipedia says anyway, between the lines)
“The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami.”
On Sunday afternoon the news ticker on BBC America stated:
“Japanese police say 15,000 people may have died in one perfecture alone, as efforts to tackle Fukushima crisis go on”
It was such a classic in misleading hype that I wrote it down. About all I can say is:
Holy Fukushima, whatever happened to reliable mass media.? Long gone.
Abour Walter Schneider said on March 21, 2011 at 12:17 am
> 1 milliGray = 0.001 sievert
> 1 microGray = 0.000001 sievert
> 1 nanoGray = 0.000000001 sievert
So, 1 Gray = 1 sievert.
AFIK this is true for the X, Beta and Gamma radiation only not for the Alfa ones.
That’s ok for me.
What I don’t understand is your worry about the Ibaraki, Horiguchi Hitachinaka City.
You stated that the values are in nGray/hr.
So the maximum peak of 2,040nGray/hr is 2,040nSv/hr or 2.040μSv/hr (not 2,040μSv/hr), which is just a little more than your reported Colorado maximum backgound (0.58338μSv/hr).
Where am I wrong?
@ur momisugly Mike Nystrom. I am also from Sweden but live abroad. I have followed the hysteria in Sweden about this whole thing. I wish you luck, truly, to publish anything sensible in Sweden. I wonder where you think they would interested in anything that is more scientific than a horoscope?
Some radiation measurements for Fukushima prefecture can be found here. I have divided each measurement by the distance from Fukushima Dai-ichi to obtain the fallout as a function of distance (see scatterplot). They are not publishing any measurements closer than 20 kilometers, except for http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110321-1.pdf, which shows that Iodine 131 was out of spec at 5.94 x 10^-3 Bq/cc. Radiation measurements for points at Fukushima Dai-ichi and Fukushima Dai-ni can be found here, but they are only up to Mar 20.
The senior level media executives have to understand that cheap abundant energy is the lifeblood of the “information economy” that fuels the growth and diversification of their industry, and thus their personal wealth. One would think, those long term considerations would at least get some sane, rigorous science advisors and commentators on staff to push back on the need for immediate sensationalism and cries of doom.
Peter Heller is right to be concerned about the rejection of rational thinking and scientific detachment in the debate about nuclear energy. He is wrong, however, to equate this with ‘creationism.’ The founders of modern science were all creationists: Bacon, Boyle, Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Steno, Jonathan Edwards, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell and Pasteur to name a few.
It is the evolutionists who want to shut down debate, just as the AGW alarmists want to shut down sceptics. Biblical creationism is no less rational that naturalistic materialism; both proceed on certain presuppositions which are beyond empirical demonstration.
P.Laini says: Let’s return to science. Indeed? This so commonplace and yet boring distorted vision of the medieval times and religion not helps. For example, how many times more will be necessary to say that earth as a center of universe was not a religious dogma and, by the way, that the dispute between Galileo and the Church was essentially other thing than science versus religion? And could continue…
If you a have a sincere desire to learn about these topics, I sugest …
I agree with you that geocentrism was not a Catholic dogma, but none of the websites you’ve linked say anything about it, if Google can be relied on. TomWoods.com says nothing about Galileo. FinancialSense.com mentions him in one article, but only in a quote at the beginning of the article, which is used in a stupid way and has nothing to do with whether geocentrism was a Catholic dogma. TheInterAmerican.org, in one part of one article talks about him, but says nothing about whether geocentrism was a Catholic dogma.
Excellent post. Well said! 10/10.
I was in Germany last week and the way this disaster was reported in the media was jaw-dropping. Even intelligent Germany citizens now believe that these 6 reactors are all going to explode like an H-Bomb wiping Tokyo off the map, poisoning the whole of Japan and sending up a toxic cloud that will blow across to China and bring manufacturing industry there to a complete halt with devastating impacts on the global economy.
I came back to the UK to hear that the absolute worst case scenario was a release of a small amount of radiactive material into the atmosphere which might cause the people of Tokyo to remain indoors for a few days, with a death toll from cancer over the following years ranging between 0 and 200 but largely indistinguishable from the normal death-rate from cancer.
They cannot both be right.