No, I didn't. Always quote, never paraphrase. None of it the stuff at issue, which is the necessary fineness of scale, comprehensiveness of coverage, rigor of theory, and exactitude of computation, to allow reliable personal exposure estimations with less than order of magnitude error. It can't be done, AFAIK. The same problems underlie weather predictions, smoke deposition, etc. We saw the difficulties the Europeans had with the Icelandic volcano emissions, not being able to predict safe airplane flight paths even just hours in advance. It's a reasonably famous and much discussed area of difficulty. re smoke eg: No, you can't. And that question can only be answered in probabilities, with rapidly increasing uncertainty, variation, and error over quite short periods of time, in the real atmosphere. (Refer to the shoe dispersal study, where a shipping crate full of reasonable identical shoes was lost at sea at one time from one ship in one place - and shoes ended up all over the Pacific, on different shores of different continents and islands, within a few months) 1) You didn't point that out, you presumed it from obviously inadequate evidence. 2) It doesn't matter. No one is claiming there are no models of this stuff. They just don't work for this problem - reliable personal exposure estimates. Those were consecutive sentences. Do you have a reading disability, that I should be more understanding of, or something?
Oh yeah we are the ones in the panic, we are the ones being irrational, that why you see us on streets protesting or buying iodine pills. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! nor is a nuclear power plant, even Chernobyl exclusion zone is now less radioactive then some places were people have been living for centuries (Ramsar). aah again the question of which is worse: the rare large problem verse the chronic small one. Had those been a coal power plant the combine increase in medical bills from the local population from inhaling 40 years of smog and particulates would have been more then the resources now wasted on the plant. Again the lead cooled reactors are resistant to weapons production: they are enclosed reactors which cannot be refueled rapidly enough to make plutonium. As fast neutron reactors they produce less nuclear waste and again nuclear waste is a far less serious issues then smog, particulates and carbon dioxide that we just throw into the atmosphere, heck coal power plants have produced more radioactive waste as fly ash (thorium and uranium in the fly ash) than nuclear power. And again the lead cooled reactors are very accident resistant: the reactors can't explode as they aren't under pressure, the nuclear fuel can't be exposed without somehow removing the lead, the reactor is naturally convecting and don't need active cooling when shut down and with negative void co-efficient the reactors can't undergo a run away chain reaction and meltdown. The only thing I can foresee is if someone were to intentionally damage the reactor, like try to fly a plane into it, but these reactors are small enough to be buried underground. Oh so you can cite this quote? when and what event are you talking about?
Thankyou for so adequately demonstrating why trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of my time, and bandwidth.
I've got some time to waste. What you originally said: "I was surprised to find the major radiation release was from the noble gases. I don't recall hearing that in the news." What I paraphrased you as saying: "I seem to recall you also saying that this whole thing with Noble gasses, and their release was both surprising to you, and you hadn't seen it mentioned in the media..." There's no functional difference between your paragraph and the sentence I paraphrased it into. This demonstrates that you don't understand the evidence I've presented you with. I doubt that even if I point out to you that FLEXPART is capable of handling an arbitrarily fine 3D grid over an arbitrarily large area, as I understand it, the only limitation FLEXPART has is avaible computational time and power. There you go, again, talking about predictions regarding what is going to happen. Yes, you can, if you understand what certainty actually means (and why I used the word certainty in a discussion involving probability). Actually, the studies I'm familiar with involve a lost container of yellow rubber ducks. And what's your point here, even Taffy pulling can be modeled. What's your point here, that we can't predict where a specific rubber duck lost in the ocean is going to end up? So? We're not dealing with a single rubber duck here, we're dealing with large numbers of rubber ducks, and as we have information about ocean current velocity, temperature, salinity, density, wind speed and so on and so forth. We can even model the uncertainty in the predictions by runnning the same scenario multiple times, and multiple scenarios (Taking a monte carlo simulation approach). No, actually, I infered that it was likely from several different lines of evidence, that have led me to conclude I would be more surprised if it wasn't done. However, this is not my sole line of evidence for assuming that large atmospheric releases of Xenon can be modeled with any degree of certainty - for example, I know that in the last 5 years, FLEXPART was used (IIRC) in conjunction with HYSPLIT to successfully identify the source of fugitive Xenon-133 emissions. Your main point of contention seems to be that estimates vary accross order of magnitude. You realize that because this is the amount of Xenon-133 in the atmosphere follows first order rate kinematics, which means that random samples will follow a log-normal distribution. It's exactly the same with trying to predict the microbiological quality of water, or, for that matter, with measurements of the microbiological quality of water vary over orders of magnitude, because of the properties of a log normal distribution. Why else did you think, for example, those first two maps that I posted were colour coded according to a logaritmic scale - or did you not notice that? The same one that you have, apparently.
You are the ones doing the deflect and reassurance hurt dance all over the mass media. When so much industry money and effort is spent (it costs a lot to produce and script all these experts) making sure that as much time as possible is wasted talking about - for example - the non-risk of nuclear explosion (that's for example - please read carefully), it looks exactly like desperation and panic. Why isn't it? Now we get to the matter. With nukes we have the very, very large and to some unknown degree "rare" problem of serious accident, and the chronic and to some unknown degree smaller problem of background radiation etc. The problem is we have no reliable estimates of the rarity of the one, or the smallness of the other. That's on top of (to the extent it can be separated from) the very large cost of such a high tech, inefficient, and inherently centralized setup. re improved reactor designs: 1) That inspires no confidence, coming from nuclear power proponents. Their foresight abilities have been tested in the real world, and found wanting in the extreme. They appear to be living in a fantasy world. This time around let's listen to people who have a track record of success, in the nuclear power foresight business. 2) It doesn't matter. No one is talking about replacing current reactors with improved designs, replacing existing coal generation, etc. In the bright world of the nuclear industry's plans, we are still stuck with all our current problems. The functional difference was exactly the main point I was making. I can't do anything about this problem you have reading and following simple arguments, combinations of two nine word declarative sentences, etc, but I can point out once again that your constant resort to personal insult based on what are fairly simple and stupid misreadings of my posts is a character flaw. You could go off on your tangents and irrelevancies without insult, or rather you could have at one time, but apparently you find that unsatisfying for some reason. What is that reason? The point is not that in some fantasy world of presumed theoretical capability we couldn't possibly know enough about xenon dispersion in the atomosphere to allow reliable individual exposure estimates. The point is that nobody has done that or can do it, in fact and right now, in the case of the Fukushima disaster. That is the output of a model - a prediction of what has happened, to use awkward language. Corrections are by acquired data - if inadequate, as in the case of the Fukushima xenon releases if modeled for individual exposure estimates, the model retains its uncertainty of prediction, whatever that may be. No, you can't. Try it. A completely different and much easier problem than modeling the details of the dispersion. Sure. That's among the many other factors that make it very difficult to estimate personal exposure, and explain the current inability to do so reliably. So we agree, then?
There isn't a functional difference. That's the point that I was making. The only substantial difference is in the voice used - one is you saying something, the other is me describing what you said. There might be a subtle difference in Inference, but only if you're trying really really really hard to misrepresent what I said (it's not a reasonable inference). Are you trying to misrepresent what I said? It's not me that's having the trouble reading, and following simple arguments. Once again, it's you, not me, that's resorted to personal insults - yes, I've been insulting, but in response to your bile. I'm not talking about presumed capability, in the case of FLEXPART - my point was that it's not some model that has a hardwired grid size, the grid size in FLEXPART is flexible, and multiple grid sizes can be used in the same model - you can use it to model areas of interest to greater accuracy, or higher resolution. No. The model incorporates measurements of radiation as well as windspeed, direction, air pressure, temperature, humidity and so on and so forth. Corrections are not by acquired data, the model incoporates the acquired data and utilizes them in modeling what has happened. There is less uncertainty in this than there is in trying to predict what's going to come next. Yes, you can. You can predict with 99.99% certainty that the smoke will pass through this 1km wide corridor, or, you can predict with 99.99% certainty that under there's a X% chance of the smoke passing through some other corridor. No, because the problem precisely involved modeling the details of the release of Xenon into the atmosphere, and it's dispersion. No, we don't agree, as long as you continue to insist that it's an inadequacy in the model, rather than the model reflecting what actually happens in the real world.
So? that not panicking is it? No desperation and panic involves charts like these: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't see how trying to educate the public to the facts is "desperation and panic" and I really find it hard how you can equate being told calming and rationally the facts is "panic" I wonder what you call screaming "the world is ending, get your iodine pills!" is that uberpanic to you? No, I was talking about the chronic problem of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, as is we would need more than one Chernobyl a year to match the yearly deathrate from all the disease caused and exacerbated by smog and particulates from from burning coal, oil and even natural gas. And certainly we have a ballpark on the rarity of nuclear accidents (being rarer than more than one a year that for sure!) and certainly examples like Ramsar and airline crews show us examples of radiation exposure levels that are safe. That a flaw of what we funded for, if we had been willing to continue research into advance designs like lead cooled, or even molten salt fuel reactors we could have had much smaller much cheaper reactor by now. Instead the industry is stuck with building on a archaic setup because that all they developed for and tooled for. Yeah because American nuclear submarines blow up left and right Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Proof positive that small reactors can be managed safely for decades. All the latest permits for new reactors in the USA are generation 3+ reactor designs, that is a significant improvement in safety over current reactors (passive cooling for example) and slightly cheaper to build as well. Certainly no Gen 4 like a lead cooled but an it is an improved design.
In this morning's press conference chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano explained that the area covered by the evacuation zone 'has no direct relationship' to dose rates being measured. He said the chance remains that the situation could suddenly escalate and in that circumstance it would not be possible to predict where a potential radiological release would go. For that reason it it prudent to use a system of concentric circles for the evacuation and preparedness orders. "When the plant comes under control, we might consider lifting the evacuation," said Edano, but there is no immediate prospect of this: Although no more radioactive release is likely, Tepco's plan for Fukushima Daiichi forsees another six to nine months before reaching a truly stable condition. Currently residents are being allowed back into the evacuation zone (up to 3 km of the plant) in controlled numbers. Residents are allowed back for two hours at a time and must wear a radiation meter which transmits. Arthur
It sure looks like panic. So? And I was talking about the risk of mishap and chronic dangers of background radiation and so forth. And they are going to be built right along with the current coal and nuke generators, which remain. So we will still be stuck with our current problems, plus the new ones from these new design nukes. I know what you said. You can't even follow the damn argument with your moron misreadings directly juxtaposed. Yes, it is. I know that. My argument assumes that. It's obvious. Now that we have common ground, how about we go on to the argument being made? So all you need is 1km wide people blocking whole corridors, and you could predict their exposure with pretty fair odds of accuracy. In the real world, with 2m people and the atmosphere we all live in, you can't. ? Wow. Start with this: the bolded sentence is a restatement of what it is supposed to be refuting. We know what it involved. Nobody is claiming there are no models involving xenon dispersion. The question is whether they can estimate individual exposure from the Fukushima release reliably enough - a much more difficult problem than pinpointing the release location from measured exposure patterns. Think of someone trying to pinpoint the location of a firecracker burst from a plot of some discovered shrapnel, vs estimating the destination of each shard of shrapnel from knowledge of the burst location. The model reflects what actually happens in the real world - within the uncertainties of the data and modeling simplifications. In this real world, it cannot be used to get results sufficiently precise to allow reliable estimates of personal exposure to xenon released from Fukushima.
So your telling me the the sky is green? You have denied all arguments and evidence to the difference between panic and the sound explanations done by pro-nuclear people, its now clear if you want to deny reality and see it that way I can't stop you. Which again and again examples like airline crews and people who have lived for generations in high naturally radiation environments show is of NO PROVEN CONCERN! Again the people of Ramsar have lived for generations in an environment that is more radioactive on average than the City of Pripyat (Chernobyl), yet no verified increase in cancer, birth-defects, nothing. Oh so your going to protest coal now? If so my work is done.
Again with the attempts at insults. Do you have Tourettes Syndrome? Is it like some involuntary impulse to vomit bile over your keyboard as you type? The only misreading was yours. No,it isn't. Absolute fucking moronic bullshit. No it's not - the measurements are used to set up the initial conditions. If you believe otherwise, you're only contradicting yourself, because the model then is inherently more accurate than you've asserted. First you said this: "In the second, the behavior of a noble gas plume in air differs from smoke, effluent plumes in liquids, etc. Note, say, the failure to rain out noted above. The lack of chemical reactions and "stickiness", the relative weight, the slight differences in physical factors so radically amplified by turbulence etc, lead to even qualitatively different behaviors over time." Claiming that dispersion models of suspensions in fluids could not be used to model gas dispersion in gasses, to which I pointed out that Xenon discharges to the atmosphere were something that specifically had been developed. To which you responded with this: "It doesn't matter. No one is claiming there are no models of this stuff. They just don't work for this problem - reliable personal exposure estimates." To which I pointed out that they had been used, accurately, to track the source of a large discharge (Terabecquerels) of Xenon-133, based on readings taken at a site somewhere else in the country, the point being you myopic minded moron that in order to do so, you must of neccessity first be able to reproduce (or model) the exposure levels at that site. The corrollary of which is, that because they were able to locate the source of the discharge, and the end of stack measurements at the site were in the range predicted by the model, then the model is able to, at least some degree of accuracy, predict the exposure in the area the measurements were taken.
There's no shortage of data (mostly thanks to the russians - Chernobyl and Mayak, but also the Americans - TMI and Rocky Flat) on the effects of low level doses over periods of up to 60 years. And we're talking populations of tens of thousands of people in total to. Not to mention the plethora of animal studies as well.
So your saying there are confirmed studies of what exposures to less then 100 mSv/yr will do to a population, if so show me.
Two years ago news has reported the intention to extort Japan with HAARP caused earthquake. At that time, this news might be viewed as crazy for some people. When the 3/11 earthquake took place, that news has been proved true. Now it’s for Iran war – to wage a public panic on coming “dirty bomb attack”.
So we and the pros continue to agree that models of suspensions in fluids are not, as they stand, good enough for modeling noble gas dispersion in the atmosphere. Good. The "site" you are talking about is a location in a gridscale with units many square kilometers in extent and many hours in time, which is assigned the readings measured at one or two points and times within it. A few dozen such readings is all you need to pinpoint a source, if your model is top of the line. Which is fortunate for them, because that's the best they can do. The reverse problem at much finer scale, of specifying individual exposure patterns with the necessary precision and reliability over wide low-level atmospheric dispersal areas - predicting what you would find if you measured at tens of thousands of small (a few meters square, time scale of a couple of hours or so) sites, otherwise referred to as "predicting" - given a point source, is much harder. It is currently beyond anyone's capabilities in real life, and certainly was not done with Fukushima even, let alone TMI or Chernobyl. The well-controlled efforts so far are confined to modeling low level exposure effects as more or less linear extrapolations of measured higher level effects. In addition to presuming linearity at low levels with high magnitudes of fluctuation, they fail to be refined by reliable measures of actual exposure, in situations involving order of magnitude fluctuations at low overall exposure levels. Averages, presuming dissipation and dispersion more or less evenly at the data scale available (grids measured in many square kilometers and hours of time, in the case of Fukushima), are the data points. Gee - they are? This is getting comical. The large and significant differences between sound explanation and what was being crammed into the airwaves by the pro-nuclear people are exactly my evidence.
Ask someone who is pro. I made no such concession. No, actually, the only additional measurements that were made (at least as I understand it) were end of stack measurements. No model refinement was required. This is an argument based in absurd premise. Bullshit. Argument from ignorance - I don't believe this is being/can be done, therefore it is not being/can not be done. Have you been following this thread at all?
No. Fact. Try to find a counterexample. The problem is that careful studies of low dose effects would be very expensive and difficult, and take many years. You stated this:" - - I pointed out that Xenon discharges to the atmosphere were something that specifically had been developed ". I simply took you at your word - if you wish to clarify, now would be the time. Possibly you write as you read, and didn't mean to say that. btw: You stated that as a refutation to something you claimed I had said. It did not refute even your version of my claim, and I had made no such claim anyway. Twilight zone stuff, this. LIkewise here: ? Kind of you to restate part of my post accurately, for once, but presented as a countradiction of some kind? You seem to have all the knowledge necessary for helping me in my ignorance - as in your example of pinpointing a stack from a measured pattern of dispersion; the much easier and opposite direction of inference, presented by you as the state of the art in the field. The extraordinary difficulty - essentially, real life impossibility - of predicting the outbound pattern at even modest refinements of scale is kind of famous.
I already named several. And have been carried out. Nope. You're the fucking genius, you figure it out. Bullshit. I restated the same thing that I have been saying on this issue right from the get go, which suggests to me that you're just trolling. They used the model to identify the source. The model identified the source, the end of stack measurements confirmed the source, and the rates of discharge were as predicted by the model. It wasn't a case of there's a source in this area of "several square kilometers", it was a case of a discharge of this magnitude from this facility is the only source that matches the available data. Do you even know which Incident I'm talking about? The only real question in my mind is why I continue to waste my time and bandwidth engaged in a discussion with someone who's interest isn't in promulgating discussion, but pushing a political agenda. You don't even seem to have stopped to consider the absurdity of what you seem to be implying that should be acheived through modelling, because what you seem to be suggesting should be achieved would require not only knowledge of exactly where every person was every minute of every day, but the internal layout of every building they spent time in during that day. It would require that monitoring to be carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. What you seem to be suggesting, is that if the government, and the nuclear industry are going to rely on dispersion modeling to provide estimates of exposure rates in the case of an accidental discharge, then the government should tag each individual with a GPS tracking chip that can be monitored all day, every day, so that exact exposures can be calculated. I'm fairly sure we both know how that's going to go down... Somehow, I'm reminded of a line from a beat poem by a poet that I've recently come to appreciate. If, perchance, I have offended, Think but this and all is mended, We'd as well be ten minutes back in time, For all the chance I'd change your mind.
I'll have to try and track down some links for you when I have more time, but there's at least one study based on Hiroshima/Nagasaki where the average exposure was 160 mSv and ranged from 0 to 6 Sv (76,000 followed in a life span study). WRT Kyshtym there were 600,000 cleanup workers exposed to doses of 100-250 mSv (one of the population groups being studied), but the primary focus has been on three groups of people, totalling around around 45,000 people who have been exposed to average doses of around 500 mSv, with some individuals receiving doses as high 4Sv. There's also the group of 25,000 people evacuated from Chernobyl who recieved an average of 400 mSv dosage - I'm less certain about what studies have been done on them though,
