Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

gbee

Worztron wrote: »

Damn nuclear power! Nuclear power seems fine until it goes horribly wrong. If all of these were used to the max, the world would be far better off: solar, thermal energy, tidal, wave and wind.

Nothing went 'wrong' actually. This event is like if a meteor from space hit the plant or it was deliberately damaged in a military action. All and I do mean ALL the safeguards worked and kicked into action as designed.

If it were not for the total devastation of the surrounding countryside that prevented immediate assistance from arriving the situation might not be what it is now.

We are in a sad situation where we, as the human race will not prosper without nuclear power. We have used up all our available fossil fuels and all those other lovely things like wind and wave just won't replace the necessity for a a robust energy solution worldwide.

Renewable energy sources will serve small communities into the future but will not sustain current growth and will not power interstellar exploration.

The attraction for nuclear power is abundant, at current level of raw material mankind has full energy resources that will last 10,000 years with Fukushima type reactors or 100 billion years with fast breeder reactors.

That's almost unlimited power and will still work when the seas have dried up and climate changed so you don't get your wind or waves any-more.

drdeadlift

gbee wrote: »

The reports of isotopes and other phenomena since the beginning of the disaster indicated a live reaction having taken place in the previous few hours or days. These reports came from TEPCO itself.

TEPCO then proceeded to deny that these reports were accurate but they were repeated a few times over the last month and denied each time.

It is a very important fact to consider, as the actions that the TEPCO took were in fact the wrong procedures and have lead to an escalation of the situation to the current level.

The procedures followed were fine for a shut down reactor but as it now appears the No1 reactor [at least] had not shut down, then these procedures and the constant lost of coolant has facilitated an uncontrolled reaction to take place, intermittently, and the control procedures actually restarted the reactor each time, which was completely the wrong procedure if you have a reactor in this state.

Do you think they had ordinary plumbers working on the repairs over there?

Overheal

Worztron wrote: »

Very sad. Those poor cows.

Damn nuclear power! Nuclear power seems fine until it goes horribly wrong. If all of these were used to the max, the world would be far better off: solar, thermal energy, tidal, wave and wind.

Actually using those en masse wouldn't be impact-free. Wind turbines already affect wind speeds (slowing them down), Solar would have an impact on greenhouse mechanics, etc. the result could end up in even more unpredictable weather patterns if these things were used in the amounts necessary to generate all of our power.

Fukushima failed spectacularly under the worst possible conditions but also keep in mind that it's a first generation reactor. Just as modern aircraft are much, much safer and perform far better than our original 20th century types.

Run_to_da_hills

Overheal wrote: »

Fukushima failed spectacularly under the worst possible conditions but also keep in mind that it's a first generation reactor. Just as modern aircraft are much, much safer and perform far better than our original 20th century types.

Makes no odds whether it's a brand spanking new Nuke plant or something dated 40 years. Nothing in this world is immune from human error, natural catastrophes or terrorist attacks etc.

As you speak of modern state of the art planes, an AIR France A380 almost had the wing ripped off at JFK on monday night with 500 pax on board, could have easily burst into flames and been a repeat of Tenerife 1977.

There is no such thing as a "safe" nuclear reactor and there never will.

Overheal

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Makes no odds whether it's a brand spanking new Nuke plant or something dated 40 years. Nothing in this world is immune from human error, natural catastrophes or terrorist attacks etc.

As you speak of modern state of the art planes, an AIR France A380 almost had the wing ripped off at JFK on monday night with 500 pax on board, could have easily burst into flames and been a repeat of Tenerife 1977.

There is no such thing as a "safe" nuclear reactor and there never will.

Spare me. Did I say that a newer reactor would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever evrevrevevevevrververrevrevrerververveververver fail?

Don't think I did.

My point is that in spite of the risks of driving cars or flying or barbecuing or any of a million things we still do them. Come off it. We could go back and live in caves and work by candlelight but without risks taken there is nothing gained.

And of course it makes odds, unless you're saying that aviation still has the same mortality rate it had in the 1940s?

Hank Scorpio

10% of radioactive materials have been released, compared with Chernobyl?

Didnt realise the situation was so serious, or a better way to put it, continueing to get worse.

Some of the videos posted on this thread are excellent.

drdeadlift

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Makes no odds whether it's a brand spanking new Nuke plant or something dated 40 years. Nothing in this world is immune from human error, natural catastrophes or terrorist attacks etc.

As you speak of modern state of the art planes, an AIR France A380 almost had the wing ripped off at JFK on monday night with 500 pax on board, could have easily burst into flames and been a repeat of Tenerife 1977.

There is no such thing as a "safe" nuclear reactor and there never will.

Are you for real ? seriously? a380's left leading edge wingtip strikes a crj jet at 25 knots is comparable to 1977 747 disaster. Dont even try defend yourself.

Massive human error v mother nature.

Rob A. Bank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrxKqLeZYD0

Rob A. Bank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSJMvmkPQog

Wetbench4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp9iJ3pPuL8

Sorry if its a repost.

Chairman Meow

Overheal wrote: »

Fukushima failed spectacularly under the worst possible conditions but also keep in mind that it's a first generation reactor. Just as modern aircraft are much, much safer and perform far better than our original 20th century types.

Failed spectacularly? Are you mental? The reactor shielding is STILL STANDING, despite being hit with literaly over 900 earthquakes since they started. If anything, Fukushima has perfromed absolutely incredibly to withstand such devestation and not have turned into a new Chernobyl. Yes its bad, but look at how badly the reactor Blew at Chernobyl and then tell me Fukushima has failed spectaularly

Rob A. Bank

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Failed spectacularly? Are you mental? The reactor shielding is STILL STANDING, despite being hit with literaly over 900 earthquakes since they started. If anything, Fukushima has perfromed absolutely incredibly to withstand such devestation and not have turned into a new Chernobyl. Yes its bad, but look at how badly the reactor Blew at Chernobyl and then tell me Fukushima has failed spectaularly

Has 'better than Chernobyl' become the new Nuclear Safety Standard ?

Rob A. Bank

http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/prognose/data/alert/ddcs_hem_1h_movtotal_1.gif

A German model of the potential dispersion of the radioactive cloud (Caesium 137 Isotope) from Fukushima, showing how the pollution may have encircled the globe.

"The release rate is estimated as 1015 Bq/d. This is appr. one tenth of the Chernobyl release. This simulation is a so called "worst case scenario" with continuous release rate. The value of 0.001 Bq/m3 correspond to appr. one millionth of the concentration at the source. At distances more than appr. 2000 km away from the source, the concentrations are not harmful to health."

andrew

For people who don't like Nuclear power (even more so because of Fukushima), do you realise that the safe operation of coal fired plants kills more people than the accidents which result from Nuclear power?

Run_to_da_hills

andrew wrote: »

For people who don't like Nuclear power (even more so because of Fukushima), do you realise that the safe operation of coal fired plants kills more people than the accidents which result from Nuclear power?

Nuclear deaths are invisible, and can spread beyond boundaries unlike carbon fuel related deaths. no one can see radiation which makes it more frightening.

When a country builds a nuke plant they are building something far worse than any natural volcano. And just like an active volcano one would want to be an idiot to build a house or live within it's radius if it was to ever spew out lava,

andrew

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nuclear deaths are invisible, and can spread beyond boundaries unlike carbon fuel related deaths. no one can see radiation which makes it more frightening.

When a country builds a nuke plant they are building something far worse than any natural volcano. And just like an active volcano one would want to be an idiot to build a house or live within it's radius if it was to ever spew out lava,

I'm talking about the cancer deaths caused by the radiation emitted from coal plants. When the coal is burned, left behind are small amounts of Uranium and other elements which become concentrated. These are emitted into the air in the smoke which comes from coal plants, and cause cancer. So, like deaths from nuclear plants, they're invisible and can spread; coal plants in this way are more harmful by their very nature than nuclear plants.

But what you said sorta moves the goalposts a bit; you have been saying that Nuclear power is more dangerous, but above you just say it's more frightening, which is completely different. So which is it then? You don't like nuclear power just because it's more 'frightening'? That would indicate that you just don't understand nuclear power, or if you're claiming that others are frightened by nukes, that we should educate people more about radiation, not build less nuclear plants.

Overheal

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nuclear deaths are invisible, and can spread beyond boundaries unlike carbon fuel related deaths. no one can see radiation which makes it more frightening.

Thats fairly ridiculous logic. What are you implying, that every case of Lukemia since 1987 was a direct result of Chernobyl radiation or something?

Even if there are more radiation-related deaths than on the record, how many more? Is it really more than coal? or crude?

Run_to_da_hills

drdeadlift wrote: »

Are you for real ? seriously? a380's left leading edge wingtip strikes a crj jet at 25 knots is comparable to 1977 747 disaster. Dont even try defend yourself.

Massive human error v mother nature.

Yes I will defend myself, aircraft store fuel in their wings, Concord burst into flames because a small item penitrated it's wing fuel tank. Like wise that recent incursion could have ended in disaster a wing got fractured, spilled feul and ignited. Many people have died through runway incursions over the years.

My name is URL

andrew wrote: »

For people who don't like Nuclear power (even more so because of Fukushima), do you realise that the safe operation of coal fired plants kills more people than the accidents which result from Nuclear power?

How many more coal fired plants are there in the world than nuclear ones though? You can't really extrapolate anything from the fact that coal fired plants have claimed the lives of more people than nuclear plants.

It's like concluding that fossil fuelled cars are statistically more dangerous than electrical ones

andrew

My name is URL wrote: »

How many more coal fired plants are there in the world than nuclear ones though? You can't really extrapolate anything from the fact that coal fired plants have claimed the lives of more people than nuclear plants.

It's like concluding that fossil fuelled cars are statistically more dangerous than electrical ones

I'm talking about Per Kilowatt hour of energy produced here, to take into account of the greater number of coal plants.

Turtwig

andrew wrote: »

I'm talking about Per Kilowatt hour of energy produced here, to take into account of the greater number of coal plants.

3kg of uranium 235 will give about 3000MW of power. 30,000 tonnes of coal will need to be burned to provide the same amount. That's all you need to do to convince me that nuclear is preferable to coal.:D
(I just remember those figures offhand, they're not exact.)


Rob, I'd love if you keep your emotion out of this. I it take you are heavily anti nuclear but even so you must realise the danger in constantly parroting your beliefs without communicating with the other side. You run the dangerous risk of simply becoming utterly biased to one position and not accepting or changing your mind on any new evidence that may come to light. The paper by Morano you referenced suggests much more pervasive links between cancer and strontium 90 than those that are currently expected. All, one can say here is that further research is warranted, correlation does not imply causation. Only time and reproducible results will tell if these findings are true. One key misgiving in the study is that there is no comparison of data between no nuclear power plant in operation and a nuclear power plant in operation because they couldn't gather enough samples. Hopefully next time they can.


I should have been more pedantic. I don't expect very high levels of heavy isotopes to find their way outside the evacuation zone. Without a source expelling them high into the atmosphere they should not be able to travel far into the air. The danger of course is that with their long half lives even a miniscule forest fire (or similar) could supply them the energy to go airborne again. If I recall correctly this is a huge concern near Chernobyl regarding radioactive isotopes lodged in the soil and climate change inciting more frequent forest fires. Actually, let me restate that, it's a pretty epic one!

Regarding Nuclear Power, Andrew I don't think it matters what the figures are regarding death by coal power, wind power, solar, hydro, etc. It's depressing in a way, but I think unless you get an educated, and more importantly, rational, public on the issues of nuclear power, statistics and facts won't matter a dime. Until people accept that chlorine is deadlier than plutonium there isn't really any hope of rational discourse. It doesn't help that numerous tv shows and films e.g Spooks, 24. paint really false pictures on the effects of radiation. Every disaster is unique, while it is helpful to compare disasters to get a scale of the danger it also leads to many misconceptions and poor perception of risks by the public. (I think more people should watch plane crash documentaries, lol.) Fukushima will never be Chernobyl, it will be Fukushima. The plant, it's design, the disaster that occurred are all entirely different and unique. I'd love, if we could this finish this entire thread without mentioning that terrible light water graphite moderated reactor disaster ever again.

Run 2 da Hills is right, cancer deaths caused by radiation are invisible. In the case of the A-Bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the risk of cancer caused by exposure to the fallout radiation is just about that of the background rate of all Japanese cities ~ 7.5%. So if someone dies from cancer in an area stricken with radiation fallout it is almost nigh on impossible to say whether it was from natural causes or from artificial radiation. Which of course is begging a more serious question, if the background rate of cancer is higher than the perceived risk due to radiation, how do we even know low level radiation is actually causing cancer?

Edit : just merged me posts

Hotblack Desiato

gbee wrote: »

It is a very important fact to consider, as the actions that the TEPCO took were in fact the wrong procedures and have lead to an escalation of the situation to the current level.

What actions were wrong, and according to who?

The procedures followed were fine for a shut down reactor but as it now appears the No1 reactor [at least] had not shut down

All the reactors shut down automatically before the tsunami hit.

then these procedures and the constant lost of coolant has facilitated an uncontrolled reaction to take place, intermittently

Possibly but it is believed this was in the fuel pond, not the reactor.

and the control procedures actually restarted the reactor each time, which was completely the wrong procedure if you have a reactor in this state.

Got a cite for that? How can you 'restart' a reactor with the control rods inserted? Why would you do that or allow that when you're trying to COOL it??!?

Renewable energy sources will serve small communities into the future but will not sustain current growth and will not power interstellar exploration.

Interstellar exploration?!? :pac:

gbee

ninja900 wrote: »

What actions were wrong, and according to who?

It's all in this thread and has been cited many times actually. The pertinent point being, as time goes on and more and more details emerge, we are getting a picture of WHAT happened as opposed to what should have or what was thought to have happened.

If you have a live reactor, pouring pure seawater on it is adding all sorts of hurt. They added pure seawater and later added the boron. It became evident that they were not dealing with a situation that they believed they were.

Boron should have been added to the seawater initially in an attempt to stop the reaction, it wasn't and the fuel rods were brittle from the excessive heat and simply shattered releasing the fuel pellets which were then free to react and dissolve the more of the rod's casing and the control rods, all of which melted.

If they had had the boron in there initially [and in a timely manner too, let's not forget the massive delay caused by whatever means] then the reaction would have probably stopped and cooled down from there of it's own accord.

andrew

gbee wrote: »

It's all in this thread and has been cited many times actually. The pertinent point being, as time goes on and more and more details emerge, we are getting a picture of WHAT happened as opposed to what should have or what was thought to have happened.

If you have a live reactor, pouring pure seawater on it is adding all sorts of hurt. They added pure seawater and later added the boron. It became evident that they were not dealing with a situation that they believed they were.

Boron should have been added to the seawater initially in an attempt to stop the reaction, it wasn't and the fuel rods were brittle from the excessive heat and simply shattered releasing the fuel pellets which were then free to react and dissolve the more of the rod's casing and the control rods, all of which melted.

If they had had the boron in there initially [and in a timely manner too, let's not forget the massive delay caused by whatever means] then the reaction would have probably stopped and cooled down from there of it's own accord.

It's pretty amazing to see someone who clearly has no idea about the mechanics of what was going on inside the reactors criticise the management of the disaster.

This is what happened: Earthquake. The reactors were SCRAM'd, which is a complete shutdown of the reactor. However, even when completely shut down, reactors still produce decay heat, which it is impossible to turn off, and is not part of the nuclear fission chain reaction process. This decay heat is what has and is creating the problems with fuel melting etc, as there's quite a lot of it. Injecting Boron initially, then, wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. The chain reaction had stopped, and what the reactors needed was coolant. Boron was only added subsequently to (some of the reactors?) to prevent fuel which had left the fuel rods from becoming critical again. It seems that this hasn't been entirely successful in all the reactors (given the evidence that there are isolated pockets becoming critical again for short periods), but it's not the main problem which they're currently having.

Overheal

Malty_T wrote: »

Regarding Nuclear Power, Andrew I don't think it matters what the figures are regarding death by coal power, wind power, solar, hydro, etc. It's depressing in a way, but I think unless you get an educated, and more importantly, rational, public on the issues of nuclear power, statistics and facts won't matter a dime. Until people accept that chlorine is deadlier than plutonium there isn't really any hope of rational discourse. It doesn't help that numerous tv shows and films e.g Spooks, 24. paint really false pictures on the effects of radiation. Every disaster is unique, while it is helpful to compare disasters to get a scale of the danger it also leads to many misconceptions and poor perception of risks by the public. (I think more people should watch plane crash documentaries, lol.) Fukushima will never be Chernobyl, it will be Fukushima. The plant, it's design, the disaster that occurred are all entirely different and unique. I'd love, if we could this finish this entire thread without mentioning that terrible light water graphite moderated reactor disaster ever again.

Run 2 da Hills is right, cancer deaths caused by radiation are invisible. In the case of the A-Bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the risk of cancer caused by exposure to the fallout radiation is just about that of the background rate of all Japanese cities ~ 7.5%. So if someone dies from cancer in an area stricken with radiation fallout it is almost nigh on impossible to say whether it was from natural causes or from artificial radiation. Which of course is begging a more serious question, if the background rate of cancer is higher than the perceived risk due to radiation, how do we even know low level radiation is actually causing cancer?

Edit : just merged me posts

I agree with this whole block of text here.

However you could measure the increase in radiation deaths say, you have city A and city B 100 miles apart same conditions except A had a minor radiation increase and B remained the Control. You could take the difference between cancer deaths in both cities and use that as your approximate attributable death rate.

Run_to_da_hills

Chris Busby from the European committee on radiation in London estimates that eventually over 400000 could develop cancer within a 200 KM proximity of Fukushima.

He also states that much of the specialized robotic equipment brought in to clean up the mess will give trouble and may not be be suitable for the job because high levels of radiation will zap the integrated circuitry in PCB's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0H-mtsdsgg&feature=player_embedded

drdeadlift

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes I will defend myself, aircraft store fuel in their wings, Concord burst into flames because a small item penitrated it's wing fuel tank. Like wise that recent incursion could have ended in disaster a wing got fractured, spilled feul and ignited. Many people have died through runway incursions over the years.

Yes they store fuel in their wings but its not all in the one sole location,cant recall how many tanks in each wing.Fuel on the a380 will initially be taken from the center tanks to relieve pressure on the wings for the first few hours of flight.

Concorde turned into a fireball because the fuel leak which was caused by fod debris puncturing the fuel tank,the fuel then was IGNITED by the after burner which no other civian a/c have.Refined Kerosene aviation fuel doesnt just explode like stuff you see in hollywood films.
Lets say the concorde clipped the wing of the crj in jfk,do you think it would just explode killing everybody onboard?

There are many many runway incursions every day that people walk away from they arent all disasters.Just like there are fuel spills.

Le King

Weeks ago, it seemed like it was virtually impossible for another Chernobyl. Now yet they have the same INES rating.

How bad is thee disaster now? I haven't been able to follow events over the last three weeks.

Odaise Gaelach

Le King wrote: »

Weeks ago, it seemed like it was virtually impossible for another Chernobyl. Now yet they have the same INES rating.

How bad is thee disaster now? I haven't been able to follow events over the last three weeks.

Overall it's still very serious, with workers attempting to stabilise the reactors while restoring electricity to instruments and the reactor cooling pumps. There is the problem of what to do with the radioactive seawater that was first used to cool the reactors, and some of the low-level radioactive water was dumped into the sea in order to free up storage for more radioactive water.

At the moment it's not nearly as bad as the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, in which a great deal of the reactor core was blasted into the atmosphere and continued to burn over several weeks, exposed to the elements and releasing more radiation into the atmosphere. I don't think any of the reactor cores or nuclear fuel have escaped their containment vessels (which Chernobyl's RBMK reactors did not have).

If you need a catchup on the situation, the IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log is a good place for updates and news on the situation. Also, there's the Summary of reactor unit status (13 April 2011, 11:00 UTC).


An important thing about the Level 7 International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) rating is that it encompasses all incidents and accidents at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. Prior to the new rating Units 1, 2 and 3 were rated as Level 5 (similar to Three Mile Island, 1979 or Goiania, 1987) whereas Unit 4 was rated as Level 3 (Sellafield, 2005).

The situation at Fukushima Dai-ichi is also unique to my knowledge, in that there has never been several serious accidents occuring simultaneously at the one power plant. The disaster at Chernobyl (1986) was a core explosion in Reactor No. 4. Similarly the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island (1979) occured at Unit 2.

Rob A. Bank

.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/NIT_Combined_Flights_Ground_Measurements_30Mar_03Apr2011_results.jpg

Recent map from the U.S. Department of Energy showing the radiation monitoring data from their drones and ground stations in Japan.

The radioactive contamination extends beyond the 20km evacuation zone in a north westerly direction.