Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-03-2014 12:35 AM
87 online now:
anglagard, Dr Adequate, dwise1 (3 members, 84 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Post Volume:
Total: 735,125 Year: 20,966/28,606 Month: 53/1,410 Week: 71/275 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Japan
jar
Member
Posts: 24631
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 151 of 175 (609709)
03-22-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
03-22-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Robot Question
Humans are still relatively plentiful, available and very rapidly reprogrammed and tasked.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 03-22-2011 1:04 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 3:11 PM jar has responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 152 of 175 (609715)
03-22-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
03-22-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Robot Question
jar writes:

Humans are still relatively plentiful, available and very rapidly reprogrammed and tasked.

Humans are also great at running remote operated vehicles. These ROV's could possibly work in high radiation/ heat environments that their human operators could not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 2:06 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 3:20 PM fearandloathing has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24631
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 153 of 175 (609716)
03-22-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by fearandloathing
03-22-2011 3:11 PM


Re: Robot Question
And likely that will go on the list for next time.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 3:11 PM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 3:31 PM jar has responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 154 of 175 (609717)
03-22-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by jar
03-22-2011 3:20 PM


Re: Robot Question
We can only hope. I am sure somebody out there is working the ROV angle now as I write. Sad it takes a bad thing to sometimes push us along with implementing something I am sure has been thought of by many, but they couldn't afford to test and build a prototype or more likely didnt see a market for one. Money is always a factor. There would be problem of only being able to use ROV's once if they get irradiated also....cost probably wouldn't concern people of japan right now though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 3:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 3:45 PM fearandloathing has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24631
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 155 of 175 (609718)
03-22-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by fearandloathing
03-22-2011 3:31 PM


Re: Robot Question
You need to remember that the problems at the Nuclear Stations are pretty far down the National Priority list. Transportation space for food, clothing, shelter, medicines, general power sources, water, sanitary products all rank far higher than ROVs for the power stations.

The news over here keeps plugging away at the "nuclear crisis" because it is popular, easy to cover and requires limited resources, but that has little to do with the actual nature of the problems facing Japan.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 3:31 PM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 3:55 PM jar has responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 156 of 175 (609719)
03-22-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by jar
03-22-2011 3:45 PM


Re: Robot Question
Well I guess the Japaneese govt asking I-ROBOT for assistance speaks volumes, read percy's link in the msg 149. ROV's could be used for many things non-nuclear, search and rescue, other industrial accidents, well fires....

I agree the nuclear issue is being used because people fear it, irrationally usualy, keeps people watching and there are many sides to put their 2 cents in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 3:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 4:00 PM fearandloathing has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24631
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 157 of 175 (609720)
03-22-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by fearandloathing
03-22-2011 3:55 PM


Re: Robot Question
And that's a very important point. It's very possible that many ROV's are being used, for example in search and rescue, even in infrastructure inspection and assessment, and those would have a far higher immediate priority than the nuclear power sites.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 3:55 PM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 4:23 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 158 of 175 (609722)
03-22-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jar
03-22-2011 4:00 PM


Re: Robot Question
jar writes:

And that's a very important point. It's very possible that many ROV's are being used, for example in search and rescue, even in infrastructure inspection and assessment, and those would have a far higher immediate priority than the nuclear power sites.

I agree.

Looking at the role ROV's and other unmanned vehicle are playing in the military, off-shore drilling....it will only be a matter of time before we see their use more wide spread and affordable for many things including nuclear response.

I am no engineer, but working in a high radiation environment will present its own uniqe problems, shielding the electronics/ sensor package for one. Handling it after exposure for maintenance or to replace tool package....many things to be considered. Disposal of it after job is done, maybe?

I feel as you do though that they will play larger roles in inspection, Search and rescue, explosive ordnance/bomb removal.. as they should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 4:00 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 159 of 175 (609825)
03-23-2011 1:34 PM


new imiages on google earth
There is new imagery available on google earth of Japan after the quake/tsunami, the first ones I found are near Fukushima Nuke stations. I am sure there is more, but these of coastal area show the scope of what they face in rebuilding. The image dates I've been looking at are the 11th & 12th of this month, by turning on time line you can compare to older images.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13129
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 160 of 175 (610399)
03-29-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by fearandloathing
03-22-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Robot Question
Hey, here come the robots:

Japan nuclear plant gets help from US robots

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by fearandloathing, posted 03-22-2011 1:54 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

    
dronester
Member
Posts: 1114
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 161 of 175 (611951)
04-12-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rahvin
03-21-2011 12:55 PM


unreasonably pessimistic?
Rahvin writes:

Those who are still expecting a Chernobyl or worse are being unreasonably pessimistic.

quote:
Japan ups nuke crisis severity to match Chernobyl

TOKYO Japan raised the crisis level at its crippled nuclear plant Tuesday to a severity on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, citing high overall radiation leaks that have contaminated the air, tap water, vegetables and seawater.

Officials from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that the cumulative amount of radioactive particles released into the atmosphere since the incident had reached levels that apply to a Level 7 incident.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake

Edited by dronester, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rahvin, posted 03-21-2011 12:55 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:09 PM dronester has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 162 of 175 (611953)
04-12-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by dronester
04-12-2011 11:14 AM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Yes, dronester, I saw that too.

And yet, despite the classification change, the nature of this disaster as opposed to Chernobyl means that we can expect a lower cost in lives at Fukushima.

The problem with the "top level classification" is that, once you've gotten that high, there's no further way to distinguish the severity of events. One Level 7 incident could literally be twice as bad as another Level 7.

Come back to me when we have a final death toll (or at least a preliminary one). That's the best, most meaningful metric to judge real severity. If Fukushima kills more people than Chernobyl, I'll concede. If not, well...

ABE -

Here's what Im talking about:

quote:

There have been no fatalities resulting from the leaks at Fukushima, and risks to human health are thought to be low.

...

The decision to raise the threat level was made after radiation of a total up to 630,000 terabequerels had been estimated at the stricken plant.

That would classify the crisis at level seven on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Ines).

It was not clear when that level had been reached. The level has subsequently dropped to less than one terabequerel an hour, reports said.

In comparison the Japanese government said the release from Chernobyl was 5.2 million terabecquerels.


Still not nearly comparable to Chernobyl.

Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by dronester, posted 04-12-2011 11:14 AM dronester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by dronester, posted 04-12-2011 12:27 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 3:39 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1114
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 163 of 175 (611955)
04-12-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:09 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Rahvin writes:

Come back to me when we have a final death toll

I think a final CANCER toll would be AS revealing. Unfortunately, as I written previously, like Chernobyl and other radiation born catastrophes, good luck in finding SOLID numbers. I submit these dubious examples:

quote:
A more recent, 2000, report, "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation", by the United Nations' Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation increased to 1,800 the number of thyroid cancers in individuals exposed in childhood to releases from the Chernobyl accident.
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predictsapproximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographicdata, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.
http://www.greenpeace.org/...eatures/chernobyl-deaths-180406


In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...uclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:09 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:37 PM dronester has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 164 of 175 (611959)
04-12-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by dronester
04-12-2011 12:27 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
You used greenpeace for your numbers, dronester. I wouldn;t trust greenpeace to tell me what time it is. They're possibly worse than quoting Glenn Beck.

So instead I'll just repeat myself, or rather my previously quoted article:

quote:
There have been no fatalities resulting from the leaks at Fukushima, and risks to human health are thought to be low.

...

The decision to raise the threat level was made after radiation of a total up to 630,000 terabequerels had been estimated at the stricken plant.

That would classify the crisis at level seven on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Ines).

It was not clear when that level had been reached. The level has subsequently dropped to less than one terabequerel an hour, reports said.

In comparison the Japanese government said the release from Chernobyl was 5.2 million terabecquerels.


I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by dronester, posted 04-12-2011 12:27 PM dronester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by dronester, posted 04-12-2011 12:44 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1114
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 165 of 175 (611960)
04-12-2011 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:37 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Drone writes:

I submit these dubious examples:

I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.

Let me know when you come up with SOLID cancer numbers.

In addition to ignored information:

In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...uclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:37 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:53 PM dronester has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014