Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

Poshbird

.......... wrote: »

You can deny it all you want, its up to each individual what they believe. But I believe there was an incident where some of the Fukishema 50 stepped in radioactive water and their skin

Three workers this week stepped into highly radioactive water while ... the skin of their feet/legs where the water soaked into their boots became blistered...........

http://mainfo.blogspot.com/2011/03/highly-radioactive-water-leaking.html

Blistered, burns when they stepped in water that was 10000 times more radioactive ... enough to protect their legs,

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110327/NEWS04/303279916

radiation over-exposure actually stepped into contaminated water, ... Injuries were sustained to their legs,

http://www.timeout.jp/en/tokyo/feature/2675/Tokyo-radiation-water-and-aftershocks-information

Radiation burns are no joke, and to say the water ate through their NBC protective boots may be not as accurate as some accounts, but its nearer the truth to what some are trying to present that the crisis is not that dangerous any more.

The account of eye witness on the Alex Jones show said it was just bloody bones left on the legs and now we do not know if these men are still alive.

Some reports say it was 2 men some say 3.

Is it possible to find out how many of the original 50 are still alive.

Reading about the different reports of the 2 or 3 men who stood in radioactive water 10s of thousands of times higher than safe limits. I would say its quite accurate what Alex Jones reported that it "ate" through their boots. They had NBC boots on designed to provide protection from nuclear, biological and chemical threats. But this water was 10,000 times above limits of safe radiation. If the boots did their job the men would have been protected, but as it happens all the reports say they had very bad radiation burns. The eye witness account said the skin had burned off and exposed the bone. Whatever the truth is it sounds pretty serious.

Is it confirmed if these 2 or 3 men are still alive? If so did they get to save their legs?

Poshbird

The only way it could be worse is if this nuclear material had been completely melted down and liquefied and burned a hole through the lead containment vessels and would be at the point burning and exploding its way to the core of the Earth. It hasnt happened yet. They are saying they dont think it will happen, but at each point they have lied and been wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFe2cL7ma1Y

Generali

Poshbird wrote: »

The only way it could be worse is if this nuclear material had been completely melted down and liquefied and burned a hole through the lead containment vessels and would be at the point burning and exploding its way to the core of the Earth. It hasnt happened yet. They are saying they dont think it will happen, but at each point they have lied and been wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFe2cL7ma1Y

Would it go all the way through and fall out of the other side or would it stop in the middle? Any physicists able to advise please?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Generali wrote: »

Would it go all the way through and fall out of the other side or would it stop in the middle? Any physicists able to advise please?

No idea but bearing in mind Japan sits on a magma pool I would of thought it would somewhat be stopped by that.....

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Would it go all the way through and fall out of the other side or would it stop in the middle? Any physicists able to advise please?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

no. we may be good at releasing energy from atomic particles but we're not that good. if that was a risk the earth's core would have burrowed its way out by now also!

no one quite knows exactly what is at the core but some evidence suggests radioactive content.

http://www.physlink.com/news/121103PotassiumCore.cfm

the real worry is not the radioactive stuff burrowing to the core (that would be good i think and probably the best place for it at this stage) but rather burrowing into the water table as this spreads contamination far and wide. high levels of radioactivity have already reached the water table. the press statements don't come out and say but i would pretty much say this is evident by the levels detected in the seawater - far too high, widespread and continuous just to be run off or a small breach.

have you seen they are now evacuating areas outside the zone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13408055

btw is anyone still trying to argue that this is less serious than chernobyl?

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Would it go all the way through and fall out of the other side or would it stop in the middle? Any physicists able to advise please?

This daft theory was popularized by the film the China Syndrome.

Obviously molten fuel rods going through the containment vessel is certainly "not a good thing".

Of course the antipodes of the USA is nowhere near China but smack in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

btw is anyone still trying to argue that this is less serious than chernobyl?

Honestly, I don't think they are comparable. Not because one is more or less serious than the other but because they are different incidents. As I think I have mentioned before, my uncle worked on the issue after Chernobyl, but was based in the UK. Because there was a big boom and the particles spread widely, that type of work was needed. I think this is very different, more closely contained perhaps, but the groundwater issue I agree is very concerning, as is the population density. I think that either than their both being nuclear incidents, they are very different ones and that's where the problem starts. We don't have a mass of comparables (thank God) and so it is clear why people compare with Chernobyl. I think that's where a lot of the head-scratching starts when trying to deal with something like this, it is outside of all of the modelling and scenario planning that will have been done.

One thing I'm absolutely certain of though, it takes a very brave, special type of person to work on this, whether in Chernobyl or at Fukushima. I hope that they get all of the support and equipment they need.

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think they are comparable. Not because one is more or less serious than the other but because they are different incidents. As I think I have mentioned before, my uncle worked on the issue after Chernobyl, but was based in the UK. Because there was a big boom and the particles spread widely, that type of work was needed. I think this is very different, more closely contained perhaps, but the groundwater issue I agree is very concerning, as is the population density. I think that either than their both being nuclear incidents, they are very different ones and that's where the problem starts. We don't have a mass of comparables (thank God) and so it is clear why people compare with Chernobyl. I think that's where a lot of the head-scratching starts when trying to deal with something like this, it is outside of all of the modelling and scenario planning that will have been done.

One thing I'm absolutely certain of though, it takes a very brave, special type of person to work on this, whether in Chernobyl or at Fukushima. I hope that they get all of the support and equipment they need.

i agree they are different but there are comparables in terms of environmental and human impact (that is what the ines scale if for). there was a lot of pr damage limitation done early on by saying this was not as bad a chernobyl. that line seems to have died down a bit now.

bendix

Poshbird wrote: »

There were 2 men who stepped into highly radioactive water and it ate through their NBC boots and suits right down to the bloody bone. Some are saying these men are dead now but its trying to be covered up.

?

Hahahahahaahahahaha.

Hahahahahahaha

What a nutter, to believe such a thing.

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Well, to be fair, they say that the levels in the cow are only slightly above the allowed. I'm still not convinced it is level 7 as I'm still not convinced this is anywhere as bad as Chernobyl, though I do think the early comparisons with Three Mile Island are well in the rear view mirror and disappearing fast.

Nevertheless an interesting article ninky. The bit I found most interesting was Sarkozy's view that nations should work together to have a binding set of nuclear standards (they have standards, but they are not binding). I think that will be the good that comes out of this. It is also reassuring to read that researchers looking at Chernobyl could not find an increase in cancers linked to caesium.

just saying.:D