melthebell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf thats 2009? aint they updated it since? that link doesnt work? orbit downloader doesnt like it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Level 5 is described as : "-Limited release of radioactive materials likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures -Several deaths from radiation -Severe damage to reactor core -release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality incident or fire" Seems arguable at best. Anyone actually read all 218 pages? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Level 5 is described as : Seems arguable at best. Anyone actually read all 218 pages? Thought not. Yes thanks. My employment used to require it - understanding as well as reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yes thanks. My employment used to require it - understanding as well as reading it. So am I right in my reading of it above? And more importantly, when you read it, did you read it carefully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf youve really screwed that link up..........i noticed there was a - instead of a . but even then i get socket errors in orbit and opera wont load it, its screwed and i cant work out where Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 So am I right in my reading of it above? And more importantly, when you read it, did you read it carefully? Not entirely. You can declare a level 5 based on the total number of radionuclides released - if they go about a trigger point then it's automatically a level 5 even if there is no-one around to be harmed. This is what has triggered the increase in level - not the liklehood of fatalities. To work the released radiation level out you look at the activity counts and apply a scaling value. Most of the core release is in the form of the core noble gas inventories, and other gases like I-131. However at Fukushima the main release is apparantly N-16 from a steam leak which is intensly active, but decays fast. So you have an active source which once it has blown a minute from the plant is almost spent in terms of decay but because the leak is highly active it;s a serious incident. However, offsite the chances of danger are exceedingly low. Onsite the danger level is much higher - but that's why they have shelters and radiation resistant control rooms of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 You have no idea of what I do or have done in my life so you cannot make that assesment. However with your comments about what you think you know I can make that assessment about you. Can we now assume you've worked within the Nuclear Industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Can we now assume you've worked within the Nuclear Industry? That would be a reasonable assumption yes, although my current consulting work is as an independant contracter now. Certain people won't beleive it no matter what I say of course but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Safari can’t open the page “https://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf” because Safari can’t find the server “http://www.pub.iaea.org”. Confirmed. Your link is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'd agree that nuclear power is relatively safe. But why is it so safe? Because it's inherently very hazardous. It's safety comes from all the safety measures put in place. So, take away all the safety measures from power generation methods - and then compare them: Nuclear fission comes out pretty poorly. It is safe because of the measures put in place to make it so. You are relying on the efficacy of those measures to ensure safety. TEPCO's track record shouldn't be filling people with confidence about those safety measures. I also believe nuclear power to be relatively safe, certainly safe enough to use. Your analysis is also sound, but you have missed out one major factor. The potential damage caused by a radiation leak can take decades to manifest itself. At that point, it can be masked by hundreds of other environmental factors. That makes it very difficult to accurately assess the safety of nuclear power. For instance, Obelix has claimed earlier on the thread that Three Mile Island caused no deaths. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. There were radio isotopes released in the accident, who knows what they did. Without a doubt, the Fukushima accident will kill people. But so does crossing the road, mining coal and driving cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.