Radioactve Iodine linked to Japan found in Glasgow

[Lollybrolly]

Sky news reporting now!

It breaks my heart that there's now a huge barren patch in the beautiful Ukraine which will stay contaminated basically forever. 25 years on, and that reactor is still leaking radiation, and no-one in the whole world knows what to do about it.

'Ingrid I agree with you and always have. My teenaged son and I were behind a car yesterday with a sticker objecting to wind farms '

I would have one of those stickers. Wind farms are a racket. They produce lots of money for landowners, produce little reliable energy, and are a serious blot on the landscape.

"It breaks my heart that there's now a huge barren patch in the beautiful Ukraine which will stay contaminated basically forever"

It's not barren, even after a mere 25 years it's full of wildlife.

It's also being very well studied and the long term effects are being monitored very closely.

No it's not good, but it's not the apocalyptic end of the world type of hell hole that some people need to make it out to be to achieve their own goals.

Chernobyl was a dangerously built, dangerously designed reactor doing dangerous things. Anyone who compares it to Japan is either misinformed or trying to deceive you in order to manipulate you into doing something they want you to do.

I absolutely agree that there's no need to be worried about the radioactive iodine in the UK.

However . . . that doesn't alter the fact that this accident has demonstrated clearly - very, very unfortunately for the people of that area of Japan - the risks associated with living near a nuclear power station. Which, clearly, include the fact that many thousands of people may now have to leave their homes for an indeterminate period that could be years.

I agree that with current consumption patterns, there is no way that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels. But - and it is a big but - we are not at the moment seeing any meaningful effort go into energy conservation, reduction in consumption levels etc. Seeing nuclear as a 'technofix' that will allow us to continue with current patterns of energy use is a complete red herring, IMO.

abr1de, clearly power stations are not a thing of beauty, whether coal, wind or nuclear. But I'm baffled by the argument that windfarms are more ugly than conventional power generation infrastructure.

Here in Pembrokeshire its quite easy to make the comparison - there are several windfarms, and also the massive LNG port, power stations etc around Pembroke Dock. Frankly, I find it hard to see how anyone would find the former more of a 'blot on the landscape' than the latter.

There are also many technologies (in particular smart metering) that could help us time shift energy consumption to match power production from renewables.

Read today that radioactive particles have been found in Oxfordshire. Realise it's only a small amount etc but it doesn't inspire confidence, put it that way.

Also, the situation looks like it's going to get worse before it gets better. This must surely mean that levels of radioactivity are likely to get worse? What about the radioactively that lasts for many years (from plutonium etc?)

It seems that various experts have been very quiet on the potential worse case scenarios, I wonder how much anyone can really know? This is an unprecedented situation after all.

I found this story much more interesting

Chernobyl may be full of wildlife (possibly genetically weird wildlife) but it's not going to be fit for human habitation for centuries, if ever.

The Ukraine used to be a fabulous part of the world. I would never ever go back there now, not anywhere remotely close to Chernobyl.

"Read today that radioactive particles have been found in Oxfordshire. Realise it's only a small amount etc but it doesn't inspire confidence, put it that way."

It should inspire confidence, the tiniest amount of that stuff is spotted long before it could possibly cause any harm.

"This must surely mean that levels of radioactivity are likely to get worse?"

No, the radioactive iodine hasn't been produced since the reactors were turned off a couple of weeks ago. And what has been released is rapidly loosing it's intensity. It's not really a problem to the people of Japan yet alone anyone half way around the world.

"What about the radioactively that lasts for many years (from plutonium etc?)"

The plutonium is more of a worry, but that doesn't travel as far as it's a heavy particle. Right now there also isn't, as far as I'm aware, any idea when the plutonium they found was released. It might have been there for years.

"It seems that various experts have been very quiet on the potential worse case scenarios"

The genuine experts have been saying that there's really not much to worry about, but that's not exciting enough for the media, so they don't get shown/printed.

So is plutonium unlikely to be carried along in the jet stream? It'll sink over the Pacific? What about caesium and strontium - are they also heavy? And does rain make them more likely to sink to earth?

"What about caesium and strontium - are they also heavy?"

I'm not sure where the line is drawn and how spreadable everything else is.

But the biggest problem from every radioactive element will be in Japan, and right now the main issue they seem to have is with the iodine. And that will fade very quickly and at the current levels isn't a health risk.

The iodine in turn will be the thing that will then spread the easiest.

So what we've found here isn't unexpected and isn't dangerous.

If Japan starts having serious scares about other materials then it can be looked at again. Finding one particle of plutonium, while worrying, isn't a huge international problem.

I really object to this argument that is always put when someone claims to detest nuclear energy - the one about coal and oil being worse.

I didn't say I thought coal or oil was the answer. I said I thought that if we're clever enough to produce energy from nuclear energy why can't we channel that cleverness into making renewable energy more efficient?

If nuclear power one day becomes safe, then fine, by all means. But at present it isn't and if something goes wrong it's devastating at least locally.

This is my point. We need to wait till we have a proper handle on it before we use it. It's like trying to ride a wild horse. Fine for as long as you can hold on. Something scares it and you're fucked.

Masses of fission products were circulated all around the earth from the weapons testing in the 20th century. It has not caused significant health problems. Modelling of environmental pathways taken by radioisotopes is an established field. The deposition rates can all be well predicted.

Here is a breakdown of health risks by energy production technology, taking into account an accident like Chernobyl - nuclear is still the lowest per unit energy produced. There is no reasonable alternative other than to include it in the energy mix until "better" technologies can take up the gap. I live in Sydney, one of the world's great Westernised cities, & yet experience power blackouts in the height of summer cos the energy demands cannot be met, which is a ludicrous situation.

The area around Chernobyl is flourishing with wildlife precisely because there have been less humans around. People do visit it to see the area. I'd say there are almost certainly more tourists there now than if nothing had happened and it was still a non-descript area of rural Ukraine too far from Kiev to attract visitors (not that what happened is a recommended way to boost tourism numbers!).

My parents live in front of a wind farm on the Kentish coast. The turbines totally ruin the view of the horizon so they are not automatically the winner aesthetically speaking.

I agree, IngridBergmann. If we carry on with nuclear power, the world is going to be covered in no-go areas like Chernobyl. And myriads of spots of radioactivity like the farms in North Wales, Cumbria and Scotland, which stay un-farmable for at least a quarter of a century. Even though they're nowhere near Chernobyl.

"But at present it isn't and if something goes wrong it's devastating at least locally."

But it's not devastating, at least not in Japan, and not yet. And Japan had just about everything go wrong that could possibly go wrong, and it's still not devastated anything. And as already said that's with an older design of reactor that doesn't have all the safety features of newer designs.

"why can't we channel that cleverness into making renewable energy more efficient?"

We're trying, renewable energy sources get enormous subsidies and have yet to be cost effective. Renewables are also not yet consistent, when the wind drops the turbines stop, when it's cold the turbines need more power than they can produce to stop them freezing and so on.

We're also trying with the ITER project which while "nuclear" is different from current reactors and if it works will be much safer.

So while we continue to look for long term solutions we need an answer now.

And that certain anti-nuclear parties are having to use the politics of fear to get what they want does make you question how good other arguments are.

Japan should serve as an example of the punishment that you can deal out to even old nuclear reactors with, as yet, little serious repercussions. It's not over yet, but those that have been saying "the procedures are working" have so far been proved right.

The people who visit Chernobyl have to carry Geiger counters. 25 years later.

"If we carry on with nuclear power, the world is going to be covered in no-go areas like Chernobyl."

No it's won't be, and is the best argument that you've got against nuclear power to exaggerate and lie?

Chernobyl was a dangerously designed, dangerously built and dangerously run reactor that was at the time of the explosion doing dangerous things.

And that it continues to be used as the "nuclear bogeyman" to scare the public says a lot about how safe the nuclear industry worldwide actually is.

elvisgirl, this statement of yours:

"It has been said, by some cynics, that the farms affected by Chernobyl have been quite happy to keep receiving their government subsidies as they got up to four times more income over a certain period than they would have done if they'd have been selling the animal products as normal in that period."

is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. I'm from Wales and the suicide rate among farmers has been sky-high over the past 20 years. Do you know what it does to farmers, or to human beings in general, to understand that their life's work is not worth the paper it's written on. Can you even begin to imagine the sense of pointlesness?

The bloody vending machines are still on all over Japan . One vending machine consumes the same amount of electricity as a house. Why are they still on? Why?

Oh yes, we wouldn't want all those Big Men's wallets to slim down for the sake of the health of babies and children who can't drink water now in Japan because it's harmful to human health

"I'm from Wales and the suicide rate among farmers has been sky-high over the past 20 years."

The suicide rate among farmers in the UK in general is shockingly high.

Are you saying that areas hit by the Chernobyl fallout have rates that are above those for the rest of the country?

BadgersPaws, thanks for the explanations. I am no expert but if I've understood correctly the current patchwork 'repair' procedures at the Japanese plant will continue for a long while. I've heard it may be a few years before they can entomb the place in concrete and know things are finalised?

What about dangers from the spent fuel rod pools? I thought that further radioactivity could 'leak' from the plant now and in the future? In short I've read we're not out of the woods yet. Am I mistaken?

What about other earthquakes etc in Japan at other sites? If there are unforeseen events at other nuclear plants do we have the know how to remedy the problem? It seemed that no one knew how to deal with the events at the Japanese plant, helicopters picking up buckets of water spring to mind.

I'm refuting elvisgirl's nonsense that farmers affected by CHernobyl (elvisgirl's words not mine) enjoy getting handouts while their life's work, and father's and grandfather's work goes down the canny
What a lack of empathy and understanding of what radiation pollution can do to a farmer

"for the sake of the health of babies and children who can't drink water now in Japan because it's harmful to human health"

Babies in Japan would have to drink water with the highest level of radioactive iodine in it for a year before they would exceed the health limits.

And that is impossible as the iodine has a half life of 8 days.

So right now there's no health risk.

Oh, there most definitely is a health risk and even TEPCO, the company itself, has announced that babies should on no account drink the water in Tokyo

"The bloody vending machines are still on all over Japan . One vending machine consumes the same amount of electricity as a house. Why are they still on? Why?"

Very, very well put, Sakura