DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Japanese products and radiation
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 139, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/19/2011 09:32:37 AM · #1
Originally posted by MistyMucky:


I did not mean that type of conviction. That might come if Mike's ever teaching about safety in working with electricity. The point is that voltage and current are dependent of each other. You will never kill yourself with a 12V car battery. Because you cannot get a high enough current flowing through your body with that voltage. If you put a couple of car batteries in series and get over 40V, it starts to become dangerous. The most important factor is what you are wearing. If you have rubber soles, the total resistance will be quite high. You get most of the voltage drop in your shoes, which might not smell nice but is safer. On the other hand, if you are standing in your grounded bathtub, the only resistance in your test circuit is your own body. There are several ways of dying from electricity but one is if your natural pacemaker (a calcium gradient if I remember correctly, leading to a certain voltage) gets overridden by an external voltage. So the latter is the culprit, but of course it is dependent of the amount of current which flows through your heart and of your heart's resistance (or impedance if you still prefer AC).


yes, that's what i said, go back to my original statement, what do you think current is? Amps.

you are arguing with me over semantics.

Originally posted by MistyMucky:


In order to write at least something not OT: I can understand if a densely populated country without natural resources like Japan has to rely to some extent on nuclear power. But in the US I would have thought that you are lucky enough to have enough alternatives.


right, back on topic. Alterntives are definetaly takinghold here in teh US, i know where i live the utilitiy cos are putting up solar pnals on all teh electrics that feed back into the grid, all lot of new building are going up solar on the roofs.

in the US its not about generating enough power, we do that (except California for some reason) its not paying a fortune for it, or not relying on foreign sources which have grave political consequences for us. materials are expensive, but there is a definite movement.

Message edited by author 2011-03-19 09:37:43.
03/19/2011 08:46:00 AM · #2
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:

I have reasons for my conviction.

You were framed.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/251/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_101930.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/251/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_101930.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

:)
I did not mean that type of conviction. That might come if Mike's ever teaching about safety in working with electricity. The point is that voltage and current are dependent of each other. You will never kill yourself with a 12V car battery. Because you cannot get a high enough current flowing through your body with that voltage. If you put a couple of car batteries in series and get over 40V, it starts to become dangerous. The most important factor is what you are wearing. If you have rubber soles, the total resistance will be quite high. You get most of the voltage drop in your shoes, which might not smell nice but is safer. On the other hand, if you are standing in your grounded bathtub, the only resistance in your test circuit is your own body. There are several ways of dying from electricity but one is if your natural pacemaker (a calcium gradient if I remember correctly, leading to a certain voltage) gets overridden by an external voltage. So the latter is the culprit, but of course it is dependent of the amount of current which flows through your heart and of your heart's resistance (or impedance if you still prefer AC).

In order to write at least something not OT: I can understand if a densely populated country without natural resources like Japan has to rely to some extent on nuclear power. But in the US I would have thought that you are lucky enough to have enough alternatives.
03/19/2011 08:27:26 AM · #3
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The implosion of the Trojan cooling tower was a bit of an event with people lining the I-5 to watch it. I feel like it was a year ago, but it could have been two by now.

Implosion of Trojan cooling tower


May 2006. . . . 5 years by my calculations. :)

Originally posted by kirbic:

Yes, Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor, of a type referred to as RBMK. The graphite was there to "moderate" the neutrons emitted by the fuel.


Additionally, I understand that the control rods used a 6 inch section made of graphite at the bottom. . . when the trip happened the first six inches of rod travel caused an increase in power. Poor design in more than one way.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What are the alternatives? Not that's I'm a huge nuclear advocate, but it seems every energy source has trouble:

Coal: High carbon, pollution, danger in mining.
natural gas: carbon emissions, transportation
wind: eyesore, noise, bird deaths
solar: very expensive, space consuming, doesn't work at night or need batteries (which have their own issues)
hydro: ecosystem killer
geothermal: not widely available
wave: infancy stage

We gotta make power somehow. What do we do?


We build new nuclear power plants with modern technology. Take the new plants in GA for example. The design has a completely passive safety cooling system. Should the exact same sequence of events occur as happened in Japan, the passive cooling would start and the plant would remain safe. No electrical power required. Of course if we get hit by a Tsunami this far inland, there are larger issues.

Originally posted by GeneralE:


A big part of the problem is the need -- caused by the existence of gigantic, monopolistic utilitiy/energy companites, for large, centralized generation facilities along with a high-capacity grid. With wind and solar generation you can have the production widely distributed (and owned by/profitiable the locals) ... for that matter, if you want nuclear, how about using the reactors the US Navy uses to power aircraft carriers -- I hear they are built to the highest possible safety standards (darn those Federal regulations!), and provide enough power to service a "city" with a population of some 5000 people.

I suggest one or two of those in the basement of every City Hall around the country will provide just the spark we need ... ;-) ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/500/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_337932.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/500/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_337932.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Good plan, though they wouldn't fit in the basement without a bit more digging! The reactors being designed now are being designed by the same companies that made many of the Naval reactors. There are significant differences in the way the two plants are operated, though. Commercial plants are designed to be operated for 18 months at 100% power then refueled. Naval plants are used to provide variable power levels to push the ship at different speeds and are not nearly as easy to refuel. There are also significant differences in the conditions they operate in. I was a reactor operator on submarines before I retired last year, and having the ocean as an ultimate heat sink made things a bit easier. . . If we lost the entire ocean, though..... well that would have been trouble!

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Easy to support things when the taxpayer is footing the bill.

Ray

Like nuclear power? I don't think those plants come free, and I suspect that substantial taxpayer money gets involved somewhere in the process.


I doubt it. The government collects rather large fees from nuclear power plants. They also won't allow any new ones to be built in the US, and this mess in Japan is not going to help that at all.


Not true on the last point. We're rapidly moving forward with plans to build two new plants in GA and two more in SC. There are 26 license applications filed with the NRC right now. I expect the NRC will issue us a Combined Operating License later this year to allow full construction to begin in GA.

//www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html

For the situation in Japan, my heart goes out to them in this difficult time. I have been following the updates on the IAEA website and the situation seems to be pretty bad, but I think the death toll and suffering from the tsunami are the real disasters here.

03/18/2011 07:24:01 PM · #4
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:

I have reasons for my conviction.

You were framed.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/251/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_101930.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/251/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_101930.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/18/2011 07:17:23 PM · #5
Originally posted by mike_311:

I have reasons for my conviction.

You were framed.
03/18/2011 07:15:22 PM · #6
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Be sure to drink some dihydrogen oxide with that salt!

Of course! That's obviously why the Japanese authorities are using salted dihydrogen oxide to get the reactors under control. It has powerful radiation nullifying properties. If anyone would like to buy some for a modest fee, I can hook you up.

Thank you -- my body is already nearly 70% dihydrogen oxide, quite enough for me at the moment.
03/18/2011 06:57:15 PM · #7
Originally posted by MistyMucky:

Originally posted by mike_311:

its not the volts that's kill, its the amps. become part of any circuit with enough current and its not going to matter what type it is. ac current is usually very high current just becuase of its use. taking 10,000 volts of dc current would probably be safe but sting considering the source (stun gun, static electric shock) but touch a 600volt dc third rail or centenary on a subway train and you're cooked.

Actually it's the power that cooks you, that is voltage x current. If I believe the Wiki sources, low frequency AC at domestic voltage requires 5 to 8 times less amps to kill you than DC. AC is also said to cause muscle contractions, so that victims cannot release the electric contact under certain circumstances.

Originally posted by mike_311:

becuase of the same situation in Japan, while there is little or no chance of radiation exposure from the core itself, venting the steam in an attempt to release steam from emergency cooling of the core

Radioactive iodine comes out of the core, nothing to do with steam. I would love to have your conviction!?

Edited to add link


Obviously if power is the product of voltage and current than its the amps that kill.

Actually radioactive iodine is present in the vented steam, not the regular steam, the vented steam to release pressure from emergency cooling.

I have reasons for my conviction.
03/18/2011 06:55:02 PM · #8
Originally posted by kirbic:

Be sure to drink some dihydrogen oxide with that salt!

Of course! That's obviously why the Japanese authorities are using salted dihydrogen oxide to get the reactors under control. It has powerful radiation nullifying properties. If anyone would like to buy some for a modest fee, I can hook you up.
03/18/2011 06:03:18 PM · #9
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Hell, I'm surprised they're not complaining about that unshielded fusion reactor we're operating only 1 AU away!

Yikes! Bring out the fire hoses! Stock up on iodized salt! AAAAAAAH!!!!!


Be sure to drink some dihydrogen oxide with that salt!
03/18/2011 05:02:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by kirbic:

Hell, I'm surprised they're not complaining about that unshielded fusion reactor we're operating only 1 AU away!

Yikes! Bring out the fire hoses! Stock up on iodized salt! AAAAAAAH!!!!!
03/18/2011 04:55:58 PM · #11
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...People might complain about having a minature sun generating power at a few million degrees down the road...


Hell, I'm surprised they're not complaining about that unshielded fusion reactor we're operating only 1 AU away!
03/18/2011 04:51:08 PM · #12
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Heck, while we're at it, let's go with cold fusion.

Sure, that's even better, although far less likely to be possible.
03/18/2011 04:07:28 PM · #13
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

People might complain about having a minature sun generating power at a few million degrees down the road...

Yeah, I have the nearest thing to one of these just "down the road" (about 30 miles) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, ironically practically just down the hill from these wind turbines lining the crest of the Altamont Pass along both sides of I-880. ' . substr('//www.pbase.com/generale/image/4303077/small.jpg', strrpos('//www.pbase.com/generale/image/4303077/small.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/18/2011 03:21:05 PM · #14
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now you could rightly counter by saying there there isn't a scenario with wind where there is the possibility of a real danger 20km away while the scenario exists with nuclear. ... if any single source has a theoretical chance of completely replacing carbon burning, it would probably be nuclear.

No argument there. I'm just saying that you CAN generate significant energy from wind power with little to no downside. Now, if you're talking about "a theoretical chance of completely replacing carbon burning," I'd be looking for fusion!


Heck, while we're at it, let's go with cold fusion. People might complain about having a minature sun generating power at a few million degrees down the road...
03/18/2011 03:08:41 PM · #15
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now you could rightly counter by saying there there isn't a scenario with wind where there is the possibility of a real danger 20km away while the scenario exists with nuclear. ... if any single source has a theoretical chance of completely replacing carbon burning, it would probably be nuclear.

No argument there. I'm just saying that you CAN generate significant energy from wind power with little to no downside. Now, if you're talking about "a theoretical chance of completely replacing carbon burning," I'd be looking for fusion!
03/18/2011 02:59:16 PM · #16
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by scalvert:

nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel.

Dunno, I think I'd get out of the way of this :-0

Yow! Still, you wouldn't evacuate a 20km radius, seal everyone indoors and hoard groceries.


I think we need to understand the difference between a real danger and a perceived danger. The government may very justifiably act upon either, but this does not mean they are the same thing. Right now, I don't think there is any evidence of any real danger over the vast majority of the evacuation zone.

Now you could rightly counter by saying there there isn't a scenario with wind where there is the possibility of a real danger 20km away while the scenario exists with nuclear. I'm a big proponent of wind, but I don't think any single alternative energy source is going to replace carbon burning. We need them all along with a healthy dose of conservation. But, if any single source has a theoretical chance of completely replacing carbon burning, it would probably be nuclear.


There's a real concern over the infrasound produced by wind turbines...even though a comprehensive 2009 study dismissed "Wind Turbine Syndrome" as nonsense, people still believe that it exists...especially if they suffer from the symptoms. I do know that sound energy in that low frequency range will travel a long distance and is difficult, if not impossible to stop. I want to read that study, my feeling is that the current understanding of how infrasound affects humans isn't well understood.

Also, if you've ever driven on by the Tehachapi Wind Farm on Hwy 58 between Barstow and Bakersfield, you know it's difficult to keep your eyes focused on the road because of the distraction created by the rows of spinning wind turbines.
03/18/2011 02:33:58 PM · #17
Originally posted by mike_311:

its not the volts that's kill, its the amps. become part of any circuit with enough current and its not going to matter what type it is. ac current is usually very high current just becuase of its use. taking 10,000 volts of dc current would probably be safe but sting considering the source (stun gun, static electric shock) but touch a 600volt dc third rail or centenary on a subway train and you're cooked.

Actually it's the power that cooks you, that is voltage x current. If I believe the Wiki sources, low frequency AC at domestic voltage requires 5 to 8 times less amps to kill you than DC. AC is also said to cause muscle contractions, so that victims cannot release the electric contact under certain circumstances.

Originally posted by mike_311:

becuase of the same situation in Japan, while there is little or no chance of radiation exposure from the core itself, venting the steam in an attempt to release steam from emergency cooling of the core

Radioactive iodine comes out of the core, nothing to do with steam. I would love to have your conviction!?

Edited to add link

Message edited by author 2011-03-18 14:36:18.
03/18/2011 02:06:30 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by scalvert:

nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel.

Dunno, I think I'd get out of the way of this :-0

Yow! Still, you wouldn't evacuate a 20km radius, seal everyone indoors and hoard groceries.


I think we need to understand the difference between a real danger and a perceived danger. The government may very justifiably act upon either, but this does not mean they are the same thing. Right now, I don't think there is any evidence of any real danger over the vast majority of the evacuation zone.

Now you could rightly counter by saying there there isn't a scenario with wind where there is the possibility of a real danger 20km away while the scenario exists with nuclear. I'm a big proponent of wind, but I don't think any single alternative energy source is going to replace carbon burning. We need them all along with a healthy dose of conservation. But, if any single source has a theoretical chance of completely replacing carbon burning, it would probably be nuclear.

Message edited by author 2011-03-18 14:07:50.
03/18/2011 11:59:40 AM · #19
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by scalvert:

nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel.

Dunno, I think I'd get out of the way of this :-0

Yow! Still, you wouldn't evacuate a 20km radius, seal everyone indoors and hoard groceries.


...It wouldn't produce electricity 24/7 either.

I think we both made our cases here!
03/18/2011 11:42:57 AM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by scalvert:

nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel.

Dunno, I think I'd get out of the way of this :-0

Yow! Still, you wouldn't evacuate a 20km radius, seal everyone indoors and hoard groceries.
03/18/2011 11:38:09 AM · #21
Originally posted by scalvert:

nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel.


Dunno, I think I'd get out of the way of this :-0

03/18/2011 11:21:42 AM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:

nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel.

Turns out they're also more resistant to damage.
03/18/2011 08:40:36 AM · #23
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by mike_311:

I'm sure in the wake of this event those guidelines will be looked at and revisions will be made to current systems at facilities in high risk areas.


Frankly, I would be surprised if anything changes. Japan already has the highest standards for seismic structural resistance in the world, and while they, and we in the more earthquake prone areas of the rest of the world, are building to resist 7.5 events, no one can afford to build for 9.0 monsters like the one they just had. Its a bit like trying to build a camera lens that could work after a four story drop, it might be a good thing to have but the resulting product would be so big and so expensive that no one would want to use it, even if they could afford it.


well yes, but they may decide to move the backup generators to an area where they wont get wet :)


again i take back my statement...

The cascade of events at Fukushima had been foretold in a report published in the U.S. two decades ago. The 1990 report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency responsible for safety at the country’s power plants, identified earthquake-induced diesel generator failure and power outage leading to failure of cooling systems as one of the “most likely causes” of nuclear accidents from an external event.

While the report was cited in a 2004 statement by Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, it seems adequate measures to address the risk were not taken by Tokyo Electric, said Jun Tateno, a former researcher at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency and professor at Chuo University.


excerpt from:

//www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html
03/18/2011 07:30:57 AM · #24
Originally posted by MistyMucky:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by MistyMucky:


I would happily pay more for my electricity if in exchange, I could send back the iodide pills I received because I live close to a nuclear plant.


Why did they send you 'iodide' pills? Are you being regularly exposed to more radiation than a person who does not live near a nuclear plant?


No, the radiation levels are low enough. These pills do not protect you against radiation anyway, but against an accidental release of radioactive iodine (a fission product). I do not actually have to swallow them, they are only for an emergency. But when you receive them, it makes you think anyway. One is still told today that there is no risk of a release, so why bother distributing them?
I am not fundamentally against nuclear power, but there is too much hypocrisy around. In Switzerland we are talking about building new plants, whilst still no agreement could be found on a site for waste disposal since 40 years...


becuase of the same situation in Japan, while there is little or no chance of radiation exposure from the core itself, venting the steam in an attempt to release steam from emergency cooling of the core.

and to comment on a few others:

Originally posted by MemberBrennanOB:

The whole battle for which is safer AC or DC has an amazing history. Edison, champion of DC tried to get the term "Westinghoused" (Westinghouse was the proponent of AC power) to be used for death by electrocution, and bribed the use of AC power to be used in death penalty cases and brought the electric chair into being in New York State to show off the dangers of AC power.

The difference in safety between taking 100 volts AC or DC is shockingly small.


its not the volts that's kill, its the amps. become part of any circuit with enough current and its not going to matter what type it is. ac current is usually very high current just becuase of its use. taking 10,000 volts of dc current would probably be safe but sting considering the source (stun gun, static electric shock) but touch a 600volt dc third rail or centenary on a subway train and you're cooked.

Originally posted by MemberDrAchoo:


This is intriguing, but I fear that the devil is in the details. How much was the setup, how little power does he consume (ie. air conditioning or no?), how often does he need backup, what does he do at night? Our solar panel only provides about 25% of the office's consumption. It's an office, of course, with lots of computers, but the panel is probably much bigger than anything your friend has.


Disclaimer, My brother owns solar installation company so i know a tad about this. i know here in new jersey there is a substantial rebate program one of the best in the country, but in order to qualify for those rebates you cant install a system that generates more power than you consume, you cant become a powerplant, or at least they wont subsidize it. i forget what the ratio is to apply for the rebates however if you want to pay for them yourself, you are allowed to generate as much as you want, they aren't cheap. In recent years those rebates have gone down and investor programs have stepped in. the investors front the bill and they get to keep the green energy credits for say 15yrs. during those 15 years you get the decreased electric bill and good earth saving feeling while they get to keep and sell the credits, after the contract is up you own the system and you get to keep and sell the credits, so its mutually beneficial. But that still isn't catching on. the money right now is in solar farms where land is bought and a football size or so solar field is set up and the investors earn ton more of those credits, plus the energy they provide.

Message edited by author 2011-03-18 07:32:21.
03/18/2011 06:27:55 AM · #25
Loose thought of a tired, but happy, guy content on being in Korea.

Can the radiation affect me over cyberspace... like when I turn on my computer/to DPC and at that exact same time one of the DPC Japan dwellers logs in....

Sad reality of man is that it goes out of its way to destroy mankind. I have to wonder how bad natural fossil fuels are compared to radiation/atoms and other man made 'improvements'.

Canon also closed their facilities.

Japan has a tough time coming... and so do all of us.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/03/2020 10:37:51 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/03/2020 10:37:51 PM EDT.