staninoodle Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Given that Japan has had an explosion at one plant,and that 2 other plants are now having simular problems,ie overheating and no ac power to cool them down,are we at risk here in the uk? Japans nuclear industry has often been criticised for not telling the truth and covering up past troubles. Given that the Chernobyl melt down affected much of europe,with dead sheep found on hills in the uk,during the aftermath of that disaster,how real is the threat to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'd be more worried about the people in Japan. Japan is about as far away as can be, we'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staninoodle Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 I'd be more worried about the people in Japan. Japan is about as far away as can be, we'll be fine. Thats about as far from the truth as you can get. Ever woke up to find sand on your windows as you start your car? Somtimes that sands from the sahara desert. Where at the mercy of the winds,with almost ALL nuclear power stations now on high alert in japan,the likelihood of further explosions is high,the problem bieng core temps cant be cooled without electricity,and japan is heavily reliant on nuclear power,specialist gels are bieng flown over from the USA,to try and prevent meltdown on core reactors,venting steam occasionally causes explosions,exposing the reactive core to the atmosphere. Radioactive particals are like dust,and travel many hundreds,even thousands of miles through the atmosphere,even once settled they can be transported via strong winds,and remain active and dangerous for many THOUSANDS of years. Have a look at Chernobyl,nothing lives there,the birds that do carry tumours via thier young,if thier not born deformed. I feel for the people living thier,i just hope were fortunate,and the wind makes it another countries problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Looks like you're already made your decision about whether it will be harmfull... The sahara is significantly closer than Japan, and the scale of radioactive release in the Chernobyl incident was massively higher than we're looking at (currently) in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 with dead sheep found on hills in the uk Can you provide a link to back that up? Sheep were contaminated with caesium-137 but this affected their ability to be sold for meat, it was not in itself lethal. The caesium-137 threshold in sheep is 1,000Bq/kg. Sheep with levels of radioactivity of 1,000Bq/kg and above are marked with an indelible paint and moved from the upland fells to lower ground because the fells have a higher caesium-137 content then lowland areas due to the soil's peat content. The sheep are checked again a few weeks later. When radioactivity has fallen below 1,000Bq/kg, sheep can be sent for market for slaughter. LINK In restricted areas, sheep have to be monitored with a Geiger counter before they can be sold to prevent contaminated meat from entering the foodchain. Some of the affected sheep that just exceed the threshold can be brought within the limit by allowing them to graze on lower, unaffected pastures for several months before slaughter. LINK Some sheep were slaughtered to test for radiation before a portable radiation monitor was developed that could be used on live animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Thats about as far from the truth as you can get. . Looks like you're already made your decision about whether it will be harmfull... The sahara is significantly closer than Japan, and the scale of radioactive release in the Chernobyl incident was massively higher than we're looking at (currently) in Japan. I'm surprised the op even posed the question considering he/she knows the truth. Can you provide a link to back that up? Sheep were contaminated with caesium-137 but this affected their ability to be sold for meat, it was not in itself lethal. . I very much doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 If the reactors really go tits up then the threat is worldwide. This is why they stopped all atmospheric nuclear tests in 1963 after only 18 years. The build up of radioactive waste was too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagger Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Thyroid cancer is catching up breast cancer as one of the fastest growing cancers in the world at the moment. I developed thyroid cancer 7 years ago and was told it had been growing for some time before it was discovered. The first thing I was asked was had I ever been to Chernobyl or ever had excessive radiation to the neck. I'd had neither. So can we be so sure that incidents like Chernobyl and this latest one in Japan don't affect the rest of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The Japanese reactors - so I'm reading - are of a type which don't generate an atomic explosion when they fail. Consequently, even if they fail catastrophically, very little radiation is likely to reach the stratosphere and be dispersed around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The Japanese reactors - so I'm reading - are of a type which don't generate an atomic explosion when they fail. Consequently, even if they fail catastrophically, very little radiation is likely to reach the stratosphere and be dispersed around the globe. The explosions at Chernobyl weren't the problem really. The graphite moderator caught fire. This is the housing for the fuel rods that affects neutron flow. That released massive amounts of fission products into the atmosphere. I've no idea whether this could possibly happen to the Japanese reactors, but ruling out explosions doesn't rule out significant environmental problems. We know that the Japanese authorities have started to distribute Potassium Iodide tablets, so they clearly think that the release of fission products is at least a possibility. To answer the OP. The reactor explosions will probably have a negligible impact upon us directly, unless they have some catastrophic problem and release massive amounts of radiation. Indirectly, it is going to cost a fortune to fix the mess. We will all pay for that in increased insurance and oil costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.