| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2011 11:12:55 PM · #1 |
The Drudge Report is posting a link (no destination yet) entitled "ALL JAPANESE PRODUCTS MAY HAVE TO BE TESTED FOR RADIATION". I assume this means cameras too. I understand Nikon's factory is close to the affected area.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2011 11:36:02 PM · #2 |
| I'm sure they'll be having fun at the airport when the 120,000 or so US residents now in Japan return home ... |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 05:55:22 PM · #3 |
I don't know which is worse, the tsunami or the radiation! Maybe the latter because it will affect even more people in more places for a longer time.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2011 06:20:54 PM · #4 |
| The effect known as 'quantum entanglement' means that any existing Nikon gear is already radioactive. I can take it off your hands and dispose of it in a secure facility. |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 07:28:03 PM · #5 |
| Hey, it wasn't that many years ago we all worried about "fogged" film from being Xray'd at the airport. And, it's been only a few years since we could opt to carry our cameras and film "around" the scanners. It's a different world these days. I strongly believe a daily consumption of 1.5 oz. of blended Scotch counteracts all the effects of nuclear radiation from Japanese electronic equipment. (Well, at least I sleep well at night.) |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 07:36:20 PM · #6 |
im pretty sure that if any products were that radioactive they'd set off sensors at the ports.
Originally posted by plugsnpixels:
I don't know which is worse, the tsunami or the radiation! Maybe the latter because it will affect even more people in more places for a longer time. |
quite sad, what a perfect storm of events. hopefully the rest of the world wont abandon nuclear energy in the wake of this tragedy, i hear Germany is contemplating the issue (that would be dumb). With the exception of Chernobyl (which couldhave been avoided) i believe this is the only nuclear energy related tragedy.
Message edited by author 2011-03-15 19:42:58. |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 08:03:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I strongly believe a daily consumption of 1.5 oz. of blended Scotch counteracts all the effects of nuclear radiation .... |
I understand a single malt Islay works better .....
Seriously, I think the people directly affected by this series of tragedies still have a long road ahead of them. Having said that, I am extremely impressed with the resiliency,courage, and humanity demonstrated by the people shown in photographs and footage... people standing patiently and politely in long lines, people helping each other, holding on to one another... a brave little toddler facing a scary person in a hazmat suit with a radiation detector of some sort... I wish there was more we could do to help. |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 09:22:23 PM · #8 |
Is the Drudge Report adept at scaremongering?
The affected reactors are about 150km from where I live. We can take precautions but there's unlikely to be any widespread release of radiation over what people can cope with. A big worry today is for hayfever sufferers because the cypress trees are releasing tons of pollen - it looks like smoke from a bushfire (albeit a bit yellow). |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 09:44:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Is the Drudge Report adept at scaremongering?
The affected reactors are about 150km from where I live. We can take precautions but there's unlikely to be any widespread release of radiation over what people can cope with. A big worry today is for hayfever sufferers because the cypress trees are releasing tons of pollen - it looks like smoke from a bushfire (albeit a bit yellow). |
The horrors! Now we're talking tragedy!!! ;D |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 09:59:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Is the Drudge Report adept at scaremongering?
The affected reactors are about 150km from where I live. We can take precautions but there's unlikely to be any widespread release of radiation over what people can cope with. A big worry today is for hayfever sufferers because the cypress trees are releasing tons of pollen - it looks like smoke from a bushfire (albeit a bit yellow). |
The horrors! Now we're talking tragedy!!! ;D |
Sounds like they need extra allergists over there. Any volunteers? |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 12:52:02 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
With the exception of Chernobyl (which couldhave been avoided) i believe this is the only nuclear energy related tragedy. |
The Unit-2 reactor at Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania experienced a partial meltdown in March, 1979, and did release radioactive materials into the community. There are conflicting claims/studies about whether any deaths or injuries can be attributed directly to this release.
Message edited by author 2011-03-16 00:52:43. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 12:59:42 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Is the Drudge Report adept at scaremongering?
The affected reactors are about 150km from where I live. We can take precautions but there's unlikely to be any widespread release of radiation over what people can cope with. |
Exactly how do you plan to "cope" with radioactive dust and gas floating through your neighborhood? A bit of plutonium small enough you need a magnigier to see it is enough to cause lung cancer if inhaled.
If one of those units melts down fully and burns through the floor of the containment vessel, I'm not sure I'd want to be as close as 150km -- over here on the West Coast, there's already concern about the jet stream blowing the dust and gas across the Pacific; apparently the aim is dead-on if it turns out there's anything to be blown ... |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 01:02:25 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Is the Drudge Report adept at scaremongering?
The affected reactors are about 150km from where I live. We can take precautions but there's unlikely to be any widespread release of radiation over what people can cope with. |
Exactly how do you plan to "cope" with radioactive dust and gas floating through your neighborhood? A bit of plutonium small enough you need a magnigier to see it is enough to cause lung cancer if inhaled.
If one of those units melts down fully and burns through the floor of the containment vessel, I'm not sure I'd want to be as close as 150km -- over here on the West Coast, there's already concern about the jet stream blowing the dust and gas across the Pacific; apparently the aim is dead-on if it turns out there's anything to be blown ... |
I think he means you cope with it in the same way you cope with the extra radiation you take when you fly across the country. You don't think about it.
Radiation causes irrational fear because it's invisible and intangible. We, as humans, hate to worry about dangers we can't see and they cause out-of-proportion angst (note I do not mean to say they should cause no angst). |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 01:12:58 AM · #14 |
Well, as I understand it, so far people have been ordered to cope with it be moving over 12km (or maybe 12 miles) away.
Cosmic radiation doesn't lodge in your body the way fallout does. The risks are different, and concern about them is not irrational, even if sometimes the reactions may seem so -- not only is the "enemy" invisible, the risks can only be explained by statistics which use way wacky numbers and terms.
California's two nuclear plants (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon) are each located near an active fault, and I just heard the former is protected by a low sea wall; too low to handle anything like what happened in Japan. Fortunately, I think you're pretty far from the (Trojan?) reactor a ways north ... |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 02:05:48 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Cosmic radiation doesn't lodge in your body the way fallout does. The risks are different, and concern about them is not irrational, even if sometimes the reactions may seem so -- not only is the "enemy" invisible, the risks can only be explained by statistics which use way wacky numbers and terms.
|
Radiation doesn't "lodge" in anything.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2011 02:11:59 AM · #16 |
The tragedy for everyone in Japan is ... overwhelming ... mind-numbing ... incomprehensible.
Just on the topic of radiation blowing to the US, though ...
US EPA radiation page, including info re: Japan: "As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said, we do not expect to see radiation at harmful levels reaching the U.S. from damaged Japanese nuclear power plants."
Also, radiation doses in perspective.
Message edited by author 2011-03-16 02:19:57. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 02:14:26 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A bit of plutonium small enough you need a magnigier to see it is enough to cause lung cancer if inhaled.
|
This is pretty much left field :)
|
|
|
|
03/16/2011 04:15:57 AM · #18 |
This thread really is a little removed for the subject at hand, namely photography.
Also it is most stupidly alarmist to think that all out Japanese cameras will be shipped to our doors glowing with plutonium dust.
As someone said earlier, I'll take them all off your hands for a knock-down price. In fact I may ask you to pay me to take them away in view of the life threatening risk they pose.
I worked in the food testing industry after the Chernobyl accident thus I have a pretty good idea what can get into the food chain.
So far in Japan we are not even 1 millionth the emissions of Chernobyl, which were of a totally different nature in any case. The real losers and the poor Japanese themselves, especially those living in and around the plant. The rest of us can compensate by smoking a few less cigarettes and driving a few less miles. That will do everyone a favour. And of course we must buy more Japanese cameras and lenses to help them out of their economic problems. I wonder if I can convince my wife that's the best way to go?
Message edited by author 2011-03-16 04:17:33. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 07:54:17 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mike_311:
With the exception of Chernobyl (which couldhave been avoided) i believe this is the only nuclear energy related tragedy. |
The Unit-2 reactor at Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania experienced a partial meltdown in March, 1979, and did release radioactive materials into the community. There are conflicting claims/studies about whether any deaths or injuries can be attributed directly to this release. |
yes, but the containment system worked as designed, any radiation released was even not near harmful levels from what i have read, akin to getting an xray.
A partial meltdown isn't a meltdown, the rods just start to melt. when a meltdown occurs the rods actually melt through the containment floor and keep melting down until they contaminate the groundwater, that never happened at three mile island, i think that situation was overblown.
they are trying desperately to keep that from happening now, but dumping the water onto them is causing radioactive steam to be released into the air. while the radiation levels are high, they aren't at deadly levels, they may end up causing some health problems, but at this time i think is severity is a bit overblown. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 08:00:02 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
California's two nuclear plants (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon) are each located near an active fault, and I just heard the former is protected by a low sea wall; too low to handle anything like what happened in Japan. Fortunately, I think you're pretty far from the (Trojan?) reactor a ways north ... |
the problem with what happened in japan was not the seismic force. the initial earthquake cut power to the plant, and the tsunami water overwhelmed its backup generators.
the power plant is falling becuase of lack of power supply, which is ironic. they couldn't keep the rods at a controllable level and now are struggling to prevent them from melting down.
Message edited by author 2011-03-16 08:00:57. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 08:05:27 AM · #21 |
| How anyone can call a meltdown of any proportion overblown is beyond me. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 08:48:10 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
How anyone can call a meltdown of any proportion overblown is beyond me. |
Because people (and media) hear the world "meltdown" and we get the sort of hysterical overreaction that generates thread like "omg japanese cameras will kill us". |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 09:21:25 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, as I understand it, so far people have been ordered to cope with it be moving over 12km (or maybe 12 miles) away.
Cosmic radiation doesn't lodge in your body the way fallout does. The risks are different, and concern about them is not irrational, even if sometimes the reactions may seem so -- not only is the "enemy" invisible, the risks can only be explained by statistics which use way wacky numbers and terms.
California's two nuclear plants (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon) are each located near an active fault, and I just heard the former is protected by a low sea wall; too low to handle anything like what happened in Japan. Fortunately, I think you're pretty far from the (Trojan?) reactor a ways north ... |
Trojan? That plant is about 45 miles NW of Portland, OR. The last time it ran was 1992. It has since been defuled, and is well into the decomissioning process.
Ranch Seco, 35 miles south east of Sacramento, CA last ran in 1989. It has also been defuled, all fuel is in dry storage, and is well into the decomissioning process.
Both of the above are many miles inland.
Keep in mind that the stringent standards of American nuclear regulations make common every day things like Morton Lite salt (contains potassium 41) and gas lantern mantles (contains thorium) classified as radioactive materials until the source is proven. In other words, if you spilled Morton Lite Salt on the floor at a nuclear facility in the US, it would be treated as radioactive material until it could be proven to be Morton Lite salt. Why do they let us eat it? Because Potassium 41, is naturally occuring. It is mixed in with all the other potassium in the world. Morton Lite salt substitutes potassium for sodium. Reason they get excited at a nuclear facility is because the regulations are made that tight to prevent any buildup of contamination outside of controlled areas. Similarly Latern Mantles use thorium to give the bright glow when heated, and stand up to the heat for hours and hours. The activity level is low enough that it won't hurt you, but the rules are tight enough that it isn't allowed in a nuclear facility.
Does this mean that nuclear power is risk free? Certainly not. But we need to educate people on the real risks, and keep things is a true perspective as compared to other risks.
Message edited by author 2011-03-16 09:21:44. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 11:10:57 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Trojan? That plant is about 45 miles NW of Portland, OR. The last time it ran was 1992. It has since been defuled, and is well into the decomissioning process.
Ranch Seco, 35 miles south east of Sacramento, CA last ran in 1989. It has also been defuled, all fuel is in dry storage, and is well into the decomissioning process.
Both of the above are many miles inland. |
OK, so both of California's operating nuclear plants are each near an active fault (you didn't address those). I didn't know Trojan was shut down -- I've only seen it driving by; however, it sits on the bank of the Columbia River, perhaps "inland" from the ocean, but not exactly far removed from a major water source.
BTW: I am familiar with the difference between "radiation" and "fallout" -- the latter is particulate in nature and can indeed lodge in tissue. I'm not saying that any fallout has been released so far, but the potential is there if there is a complete meltdown which compromises the integrity of the containment vessel.
Personally, I am not worried about contaminated products -- I think that part of the thread (at the beginning) was intended to be humorous. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 11:33:47 AM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 02:57:43 PM EDT.
