Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

Really2

ninky wrote: »

seems to be some confusing reporting because according to this they were set at 600 a kg in 2008 http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/eu-ups-cesium-safety-level/....click the link to previous limits at the bottom.

It does seem to be confused (but mainly from translation of non english sites) but why would we want higher limits when there has been an accident, higher limits than the country who had the accident?
Bringing it in line with Japan seems the more likely story (not raising limits)

A) easier to administer as Japan would check food and we can check against those levels.
Our previous limits would have been higher because of Chernobyl.

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

Looks like the blogs got it the wrong way round.

Unfortunately this is what happens if you get your information from blogs. They are often interested in the extremes and don't want to stop to think about accuracy.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

Unfortunately this is what happens if you get your information from blogs. They are often interested in the extremes and don't want to stop to think about accuracy.

Fear seems to work well with advertising revenue.

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

Fear seems to work well with advertising revenue.

It tends to attract a lower class of reader however.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

It tends to attract a lower class of reader however.

What I do not get is why some people think the news/media is a conspiracy and cover up all the time.
But they then think a personal site that has no responsibility for telling the truth (such as a blog) is some how credible and true.

The media may spin things and have a VI in some cases but I think I would lean more to a news agency telling the truth than blogger gossip.

Generali

SilverStandard wrote: »

Its the Japan safety standards going down, but the rest of the world yes that Europe one is going up just at a time like this.

In common with most of the posters on this thread I'm no expert but from what I can see, the Japanese Government has been forced to change safety standards in order to allow workers to try to stabilise the reactor.

worldtraveller

Gorjao wrote: »

What does that mean stabilise the reactor?

One idea would be to make a big platform of about 2m of solid lead because radiation can not get through that much lead. Then on top of that a high melting point containment material. Then use machines to put all the reactors in the containment material then pour another 2M lead on top and then about 30 ft of concrete on top just like Chernobyl.

The problem is if they just cover the top then radiation goes down and get into the water supply.

I'm sure it's not quite as simple as that? For example, specifically in Japan, how do those materials act under situations of serious seismic activity?

Generali

Gorjao wrote: »

What does that mean stabilise the reactor?

No idea matey. Like I say, I'm no expert.

Really2

Gorjao wrote: »

What does that mean stabilise the reactor?

Cooling it is the first priority, we are one month in, I think we have another month or two of cooling before they can start to look at doing something with the fuel.

I am also no expert but I think they are of the opinion that capping/contaiment is a last resort.

Cool and remove is the best option for the environment and the long term future of the area. It was never an option at Chernobyl, a lot of fuel was already in the atmosphere after 10 days.

The fuel in the main is likely to be undamaged as all this kicked off after cold shutdown. Although very hot the damage to fuel and the reactors should be nothing like what happened at Chernoby as that happened when the fuel was still at critical. Also the containment means it should still be in one area.

It may not be salvageable, but it is best to hold removing the fuel as the first option as it still needs to be cooled before they could think about contaiment/capping.

michaels

As I understand it the fissionis going on, earthquake happens and control rods are inserted which stops fission from increasing (more particles are absorbed than emmited so gradually fission rate declines presumably towards the natural decay rate of each fuel rod.

Has anyone read anything about how long this is likely to take for the rods to reach a level of activity at which they no longer require water cooling and thus could be moved?