Fukushima spent fuel pool over reactor 4 in danger of collapsing

youtube!

I think its just that people really dont want to believe,classic human trait of burying head in sand.

hooradiation

Statistician wrote: »

Which part of the report do you doubt? Do you believe that the report is fabricated? or is it something else you have a problem with?

All of it.
And unless you'd like to provide some more corroborating reports for the actual story in the OP (and not, as you tried earlier to prove a small fraction of what is being claimed is true) then I'm going to file it under "made up nonsense".

I suggest you do the same.

Somnus

youtube! wrote: »

I think its just that people really dont want to believe,classic human trait of burying head in sand.

I think it's hard to trust a lot of reporting on the subject though.

I would be a supporter of nuclear energy, and as such I feel that there is a lot of negative press associated with it.
So when I hear stuff like this, obviously I want to know the truth about how serious it is, but I can't help but be cynical and think it's being sensationalised to an extent.

I guess my point is: What sources can you trust?
Anti-nuclear individuals will put their spin on it, and pro-nuclear individuals could easily underplay the seriousness.

teednab-el

The Japanese are such sneaky pri*ks. This is all a cover up and I fear that the situation is worse than what we think it is. Jesus I thought the Russians were bad. Typical Japanese letting us know nothing.

Francie Barrett

OP has the most appropriate username - don't you all think

youtube!

teednab-el wrote: »

The Japanese are such sneaky pri*ks. This is all a cover up and I fear that the situation is worse than what we think it is. Jesus I thought the Russians were bad. Typical Japanese letting us know nothing.

Proud nation + Kamikaze attitude+ earthquake zone+ nuclear reactors+ under reporting = rest of world in deep ****. I dont like this one bit,they have been playing it down since day one.

Canis Lupus

OP pretty much predicted the end of the world when the accident first happened. Good to see he still hasn't stopped hoping for it.

SeanW

teednab-el wrote: »

The Japanese are such sneaky pri*ks. This is all a cover up and I fear that the situation is worse than what we think it is. Jesus I thought the Russians were bad. Typical Japanese letting us know nothing.

youtube! wrote: »

Proud nation + Kamikaze attitude+ earthquake zone+ nuclear reactors+ under reporting = rest of world in deep ****. I dont like this one bit,they have been playing it down since day one.

I presume both of these posts are a piss-take. If not, compare the amount of information that was available after both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.

1. After Chernobyl, the Soviets did try to hide the seriousness of the accident from the outside world. This is a fact. However, radiation from the disaster was detected in Sweden from routine monitoring of its nuclear power plants, and when it was found that lots of radiation was coming from the Soviet Union, the Americans redirected their spy satellites to see what was going on. The world knew reasonably well what was going on, even though the Soviet government did their best to hide the whole thing from the world.
2. After Fukushima, the Japanese government made no secret of what was going on there, they immediately gave the accident a rating on the INES scale which they later upgraded to Level 7 (major accident). Japan is an open country and I have little doubt that people from all over the world are studying this, many perhaps on a desk-research basis. Japan is an open country with a free press and there is no evidence that they've tried to hide anything.

Alice_Banned

No sign of Godzilla yet?

RichieC

Statistician wrote: »

Do some people believe that everything at Fukushima is going along fine? There is no concern for alarm?

Why the comments about tin foil hats, etc?


Were people posting stuff about conspiracy theories and tin foil hats when the BP blowout happened?

Unfortunately, yes. The potential bad effects from Fukushima are so bad that any person of perceived authority saying it is all right will be believed and anyone trying to warn of the potential dangers will be told to fk off back to the CT forum.

jumpguy

If you want reliable, non-sensationalist info about Fukushima try the BBC News site or Tepco's website. Tepco released a report last month outlining everything they've done in the one year since the disaster here. They'll tell you much the same thing - the situation is still very serious, but nowhere near as volatile or critical as it was in the first few months of the disaster.

micropig

Statistician wrote: »

Why the comments about tin foil hats, etc?

Radiation can not penetrate tinfoil. By wearing a tin foil hat, your brain will not be fried. It is recommended a body suit is also worn. Out of date iodine tablets will protect you from the inside. Drive West.

SeanW

RichieC wrote: »

Unfortunately, yes. The potential bad effects from Fukushima are so bad that any person of perceived authority saying it is all right will be believed and anyone trying to warn of the potential dangers will be told to fk off back to the CT forum.

The problem is that nuclear power has a lot of detractors, who are ... shall I say ... very sparing with the truth, and very generous with propaganda, half-truths and outright lies.

So it makes sense that the Japanese radiological protection authorities, as well as respected researchers in their respective fields, should be believed, while people like Greenpeace or Alex Jones can rightfully be assumed to have an agenda.

Ficheall

jumpguy wrote: »

If you want reliable, non-sensationalist info about Fukushima try [...] Tepco's website. Tepco released a report last month outlining everything they've done in the one year since the disaster here. They'll tell you much the same thing - the situation is still very serious, but nowhere near as volatile or critical as it was in the first few months of the disaster.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being sarcastic.

Táim chun glacadh leis nach bhfuil tú ach ag magadh anseo.

Run_to_da_hills

SeanW wrote: »

So it makes sense that the Japanese radiological protection authorities, as well as respected researchers in their respective fields, should be believed, while people like Greenpeace or Alex Jones can rightfully be assumed to have an agenda.

Wasn't it Alex Jones that was first ringing alarm bells about possible meltdown's, radiation leaking into the sea, contaminated land, comparing the disaster to Chernobyl etc while Tepco and the rest of the mainstream media were suppressing the situation and playing it down. He was the first to compare it to Chernobyl (Level 7 ).

It was only after these things came to pass that we heard about the seriousness of the situation from Tepco and the mainstream media.

http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-nuke-plant-now-in-full-meltdown/

jumpguy

Ficheall wrote: »

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being sarcastic.

No, I'm not. Tepco are doing most of the work now in the Fukushima reactor. They are the ones releasing the information the media use. Not some pox tabloid journalist. The BBC are stellar 99.5% of the time.

Ficheall

jumpguy wrote: »

No, I'm not. Tepco are doing most of the work now in the Fukushima reactor. They are the ones releasing the information the media use. Not some pox tabloid journalist. The BBC are stellar 99.5% of the time.

Who else would be doing the work on it???

Cé eile a mbeadh ag déanamh an t-obair air??

Chazz Michael Michaels

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Wasn't it Alex Jones that was first ringing alarm bells about possible meltdown's, radiation leaking into the sea, contaminated land, comparing the disaster to Chernobyl etc while Tepco and the rest of the mainstream media were suppressing the situation and playing it down. He was the first to compare it to Chernobyl (Level 7 ).

It was only after these things came to pass that we heard about the seriousness of the situation from Tepco and the mainstream media.

http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-nuke-plant-now-in-full-meltdown/

TSHIRTS! Get yer TSHIRTS here!

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/

TSHIRTS!

Corkfeen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Wasn't it Alex Jones that was first ringing alarm bells about possible meltdown's, radiation leaking into the sea, contaminated land, comparing the disaster to Chernobyl etc while Tepco and the rest of the mainstream media were suppressing the situation and playing it down. He was the first to compare it to Chernobyl (Level 7 ).

It was only after these things came to pass that we heard about the seriousness of the situation from Tepco and the mainstream media.

http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-nuke-plant-now-in-full-meltdown/

He spouts alot of rubbish for the most part. Some of it was inevitably going to end up turning out to be correct on at least a few statements..... I wouldn't actually choose to use him as a source for news though.... :pac:

jumpguy

Ficheall wrote: »

Who else would be doing the work on it???

Cé eile a mbeadh ag déanamh an t-obair air??

There were plenty of (mostly advisory) external agencies in on it at the start - experts in that type of nuclear reactor and so on. I'd assume they probably still get some advice from external agencies at the moment, but I don't know.

Statistician

jumpguy wrote: »

No, I'm not. Tepco are doing most of the work now in the Fukushima reactor. They are the ones releasing the information the media use. Not some pox tabloid journalist. The BBC are stellar 99.5% of the time.

TEPCO have hired contractors to do the dirty work. TEPCO have a history of covering things up. For example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20263-japans-record-of-nuclear-coverups-and-accidents.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/02/japan.tepco/index.html

They have handled the Fukushima crisis by limiting the release of information. For them, controlling public opinion is as important as controlling the catastrophe. They also don't want people panicking.


Please just think about it for a minute.

There are three meltdowns. They only know the condition of reactor two - and it's bad. Two feet of cooling water (where there should be 30) and radiation so high that they are unable to fix the problem. They have to invent some new technology to handle this. They believe the other two reactors are in a worse state. They don't even know where the fuel has ended up in these.

The fuel pool in a building that is tilting to one side and has already had a tsunami, earthquakes and explosions hit it.

How bad does it need to be?

or is it just conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

Solair

Icepick wrote: »

Surely a tin foil hat is all you need, OP.

Nope, tinfoil's no use. It's lead underpants you need for this kind of thing!

Run_to_da_hills

Corkfeen wrote: »

He spouts alot of rubbish for the most part. Some of it was inevitably going to end up turning out to be correct on at least a few statements..... I wouldn't actually choose to use him as a source for news though.... :pac:

I very rarely quote Alex Jones unless it is something that he came up with in the past that has come to light, I usually try to find the source of his stuff.

Alex Jones in my opinion would be the McDonald's of CT websites. There are far better and less commercial places to seek alternative information. .

SeanW

I just found some useful info about the oceanic pollution that resulted from the tsunami and Fukushima meltdown.

http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/fukushimas-impact-on-the-ocean-environment-revealed/

Not only will there not be anywhere near enough radiation in the area to warrant a fishing ban (which the author considers a little bit unfortunate, since a fishing ban would have lots of positive effects) but, as anyone with half a brain could have imagined, the vast majority of oceanic pollution from the catastrophe will come from man-made debris that has been washed out to sea from the land, (like houses, cars, plastics, oil & chemicals etc) that will be much more severe and spread out over a much wider area.

There's a good estimate of that here:

One thing about the Japanese tsunami is clear: that when the history books are written about it, they will tell a tale of 19000 people dead, and about the bravery and dignity of the Japanese people in the face of a horrifying human tragedy and massive destruction.

Unless those books are written by Greenpeace types, in which case it will say "An Earthquake happened followed by a tsunami, which cause the Fukushima 1 reactor to just spontaneously combust, contaminating bazillions of hectares of land, making fish glow in the dark as far away as California, proving yet again that nuclear power is highly dangerous and evil and peddled by devious slime-people."

Pottler

SeanW wrote: »

I just found some useful info about the oceanic pollution that resulted from the tsunami and Fukushima meltdown.

http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/fukushimas-impact-on-the-ocean-environment-revealed/

Not only will there not be anywhere near enough radiation in the area to warrant a fishing ban (which the author considers a little bit unfortunate, since a fishing ban would have lots of positive effects) but, as anyone with half a brain could have imagined, the vast majority of oceanic pollution from the catastrophe will come from man-made debris that has been washed out to sea from the land, (like houses, cars, plastics, oil & chemicals etc) that will be much more severe and spread out over a much wider area.

There's a good estimate of that here:

One thing about the Japanese tsunami is clear: that when the history books are written about it, they will tell a tale of 19000 people dead, and about the bravery and dignity of the Japanese people in the face of a horrifying human tragedy and massive destruction.

Unless those books are written by Greenpeace types, in which case it will say "An Earthquake happened followed by a tsunami, which cause the Fukushima 1 reactor to just spontaneously combust, contaminating bazillions of hectares of land, making fish glow in the dark as far away as California, proving yet again that nuclear power is highly dangerous and evil and peddled by devious slime-people."

Yeah, roish. "Massive leak of radiation, reactors uncontained,....but sure it'l be grand. In other news, Jedward are to represent Ireland in the Eurovision":rolleyes:

Statistician

From:http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/fukushimas-impact-on-the-ocean-environment-revealed/

Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power presumably because they think it is bad for the environment. Concerns about waste, radioactive releases and so on are often cited as evidence for this. Having released a very large quantity of artificial radioactive isotopes into the marine environment, Fukushima gives us a very good opportunity to test this concern in a real-world setting

So on one hand he admits that the Fukushima disaster has released a huge quantity of artificial radioactive isotopes in the ocean, but yet he also states that "Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power presumably because they think it is bad for the environment".

Is releasing radioactive waste into the ocean not bad for the environment?

Incidentally, TEPCO has begun pouring a 60-centimetre-thick layer of concrete over 70000 square metres of the ocean seabed near the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. (Source http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1329889047P.pdf)

Why would they do that?

Yakult

Oh my science.

Solair

I'm sure the reality is somewhere between the best case and worst case scenario.

The facts are that vast amounts of material were washed into the ocean and that simply cannot be good.

The most likely problem with that will be contaminated fish.

Algae absorbs a lot of these radioactive substances, they're eaten by fish, which in turn are eaten by bigger fish and so on. Each step of the process concentrates the radioactive isotopes and eventually you have enough to be quite problematic to whoever ends up eating that fish.

There has been relatively little data made public on the actual degree of contamination of sea waters and also of land in Japan. So, I don't know how anyone here is making any proclamations about safety on this forum or, accusing concerned posters of being paranoid.

There has undoubtedly been a bit of a whitewash of what's going on as has always been the case with any nuclear incidents in the past.

I don't like the way the nuclear industry tends to close ranks and not make information public. This happens anytime there's a minor incident, it's all hushed-up.

I think as an industry, it has come from a culture of intense secrecy due to the military sensitivity of nuclear technology and people are generally very fearful of nuclear plants, so it always has a tendency to cover-up / minimise PR damage rather than come out with the facts.

This kind of behaviour does not engender public confidence, rather it creates conspiracy theories and concerns that something is being covered-up and hidden from public knowledge.

The measurements of instantaneous gamma radiation levels is also really not much use. Many of the cancer-related issues likely to be caused will be because of absorption of radioactive isotopes, which will slowly build up over time.

Hot particles, e.g. small quantities of radioactive isotopes like cesium are incorporated into bones, instead of calcium, and output low doses of radiation over long periods of time causing cancer.

There is really no way of knowing exactly how this will pan out. There are very few precedents to look at. Major nuclear incidents like this have never happened in a highly populated area near the sea before. Chernobyl was in-land and in a relatively low-population area of Eastern Europe. No part of Japan is low density population.

Even Fukushima's more densely populated than most of Western Europe and this is within a only 238km from central Tokyo, which is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.
To put this into a British context, it's like having a similar incident in the Home Counties.

Fukushima prefecture has a population of over 2 million people, with 154 people / km2 which is more densely populated than France, Spain and twice as dense as Ireland! It also contains at least one major city (as big as Dublin, if you include its hinterland) + several smaller ones. That's also ignoring the fact that it borders other much more densely populated prefectures, which have far larger populations and the radiation does not respect local government boundaries.

The types of isotopes released are also quite different to nuclear weapons testing. Reactors produce a far wider range of isotopes (& in much greater quantities) and it's all very unpredictable as to what exactly is out there.

Yes, the cores didn't actually explode and scatter debris, but the buildings did. A lot of the evidence seems to indicate that hydrogen explosions took place in / above the fuel storage pools. These have absolutely no containment whatsoever, they're just deep open pools in a shed pretty much.

So, before we make pronouncements of safety and ridicule people who have concerns about the safety of that area of Japan and the Pacific after the accident, lets wait for some facts to crystalise out. That could take years!

cocoshovel

I wonder if there is more waste after being dumped into the sea than the amount that is dumped into the Irish sea? Hasnt effected us yet, although Im sure its a different type of waste in terms of how it was processed....maybe :rolleyes:

Solair

What was dumped into the Irish Sea was an absolute disgrace, but one would hope that it wasn't just water washed through nuclear reactor cores, rather it was low-grade waste from a reprocessing plant.

Again, with that there's absolutely no clarity about what was dumped in at the height of the cold war era.

SeanW

Statistician wrote: »

Is releasing radioactive waste into the ocean not bad for the environment?

Noone's denying that, but it's a question of scale, and I've always suspected that the scale of environmental harm from the tsunami itself (contamination of land from destroyed oil and chemical tanks, oceanic contamination & shipping hazards from debris etc) far outweigh anything that has been caused by Fukushima.

Incidentally, TEPCO has begun pouring a 60-centimetre-thick layer of concrete over 70000 square metres of the ocean seabed near the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. (Source http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1329889047P.pdf)

Why would they do that?

If I remember my basic geometry correctly, 70000sq/m is not even one tenth of a square kilometre.

Before I even read your link I suspected that it would have been done to deal with a specific local issue in the area. If you re-read your own link you will find that I was right, and that the rationale for putting down the concrete layer is explained very well and makes sense.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Fukushima site won't need care and cleaning, this is just a logical part of that.

Statistician

SeanW wrote: »

Noone's denying that, but it's a question of scale, and I've always suspected that the scale of environmental harm from the tsunami itself (contamination of land from destroyed oil and chemical tanks, oceanic contamination & shipping hazards from debris etc) far outweigh anything that has been caused by Fukushima.

First of all I don't know why you are comparing the environmental harm of the tsunami with Fukushima Daiichi NPP. It's a bit like comparing forest fires with the BP spill. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that the environmental harm of the tsunami was huge.

Something else to consider is that Fukushima is far from over. We do not know how much more radioactive waste will be released. We do not know how much as been released so far. We do not know the exact effects salt water has on nuclear fuel. With all these unknowns, how can we compare it to anything? We certainly can't compare it to the effects of a completely different disaster.

Before I even read your link I suspected that it would have been done to deal with a specific local issue in the area. If you re-read your own link you will find that I was right, and that the rationale for putting down the concrete layer is explained very well and makes sense.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course it's because of a specific local issue, I didn't suggest otherwise.

SeanW

My points were that while the Fukushima accident was bad, it was only a small part of a very large tsunami catastrophe. Any discussion of it, IMO should not overstate its importance in its proper context.

It's also a common tactic among anti-nuclear campaigners to be very sparing with the truth, and to try to blow everything bad about nuclear energy totally out of proportion while totally understating the benefits.

I'm sure there are some cretins in Greenpeace and world environmental movements who would like to airbrush the earthquake and tsunami out of history and suggest that the nuclear accident was the only thing of real importance that happened that day.

I do not intend to allow that to happen.

Statistician

SeanW wrote: »

My points were that while the Fukushima accident was bad, it was only a small part of a very large tsunami catastrophe. Any discussion of it, IMO should not overstate its importance in its proper context.

I regard them to be two separate events. A natural disaster, followed by a man-made one.

Fukushima is also ongoing. We still do not know what the full impact will be.
If SFP4 collapses, the consequences may be very far reaching indeed.

daelight

Statistician wrote: »

I regard them to be two separate events. A natural disaster, followed by a man-made one.

The tsunami beat the living sh*t out of 300km of coastline. Its destruction is well documented. No scientific models came close to predicting such a large tsunami occurring during the useable lifetime of the power plants.

Many scare stories - the food and air are contaminated to varying degrees and the health repercussions also vary. Long term radiation doses do not harm humans compared to short-term massive doses. Lets see how we fare.

I love the nuclear argument yet most of you have been spewing CO2 out of your SUVs these past decades, with the health and ecological catastrophe that has brought??

ScumLord

Considering that old plant got hit by an earthquake/tsunami I think it's holding up fairly well. 20,000 people died because of the earthquake/tsunami. 0 people have died due to the fallout for the nuclear power plant.

Even Chernobyl is a picaresque landscape after their accident.

Statistician

It thought this thread was about Spent fuel pool 4 at Fukushima and it being in danger of collapse.

- There is no safe dose of many of the isotopes that were (and are being) released.
- The long term health effects of radiation exposure are very difficult to study. It does not mean that effects are harmless!
- we do not know how many people will die as a result of the radiation release. It is true to say that no one has yet to die from acute radiation sickness, but it's far too early to draw any meaningful conclusions about the long term effects (I'm sure I've posted this already)
- Japan has experienced many tsunamis. It was not beyond the realm of possibility that one of this magnitude would strike.

Maybe all the pro/anti nuclear power stuff should be posted somewhere else.

Considering that old plant got hit by an earthquake/tsunami I think it's holding up fairly well.

Really? Even though the containments have been breached?

ScumLord

Statistician wrote: »

Really? Even though the containments have been breached?

It was a tsunami.

Statistician

ScumLord wrote: »

It was a tsunami.

Do you not think it should have been designed to withstand tsunamis and earthquakes if that is where they wanted to build it? A bit of an oversight don't you think?

I can't see how it held up well by any stretch of the imagination. The containments were breached. This is the opposite of 'holding up fairly well'

hooradiation

Statistician wrote: »

I can't see how it held up well by any stretch of the imagination.

Then what we have here is a failure of imagination and nothing else.

Mr Benevolent

Statistician wrote: »

Do you not think it should have been designed to withstand tsunamis and earthquakes if that is where they wanted to build it? A bit of an oversight don't you think?

I can't see how it held up well by any stretch of the imagination. The containments were breached. This is the opposite of 'holding up fairly well'

Containment was not breached by the tsunami. The reactor was shut down and residual heat needed to be drawn away by pumps. Power to the pumps failed when the tsunami hit, knocking out the backup generators. Then the reactor started to heat up, eventually causing a containment breach. The reactors were designed not to be damaged by an earthquake or a tsunami (and they weren't, not directly anyway) but this event wasn't forseen. There was a tsunami wall but it wasn't high enough.

cocoshovel

Might be a bit hard to build it tsunami-proof. Seeing as most towns with tsunami walls were completely destroyed. Besides, is it even possible to build something able to fully withstand a 130ft wave?

Overheal

Statistician wrote: »

Do you not think it should have been designed to withstand tsunamis and earthquakes if that is where they wanted to build it? A bit of an oversight don't you think?

Actually it was designed to withstand both, up to a certain magnitude. Just not a thousand of them along with one big wave. Grid power was knocked out and backup generators flooded. There was no way to power the coolant pumps. You have to have a little appreciation for just how destructive the natural event was. And lets nevermind the plant has been around since the late 60s, the newest reactor was commissioned in 1973. It's been through a lot of sh*t, so it seems a little shortsighted to say this was an oversight in design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

Statistician

Overheal wrote: »

Actually it was designed to withstand both, up to a certain magnitude. Just not a thousand of them along with one big wave. Grid power was knocked out and backup generators flooded. There was no way to power the coolant pumps. You have to have a little appreciation for just how destructive the natural event was. And lets nevermind the plant has been around since the late 60s, the newest reactor was commissioned in 1973. It's been through a lot of sh*t, so it seems a little shortsighted to say this was an oversight in design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

It was an oversight in design and planning.
Huge tsunamis have hit Japan before. How is this short sighted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

2007: Tsunami-study ignored

In 2007 TEPCO did set up a department to supervise all its nuclear facilities, and until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the chief of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. An in-house study in 2008 pointed out that there was an immediate need to improve the protection of the power station from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 meters. Officials of the department at the company's headquarters insisted however that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously

There was also a report that it the earthquake knocked out the cooling system even before the tsunami hit.

Statistician

I would like to set up a thread where we can argue the pros and cons of nuclear power.
Would this be an appropriate place for it?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=366

Overheal

I'd say here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=109 just don't make it about global warming...

ScumLord

Statistician wrote: »

It was an oversight in design and planning.
Huge tsunamis have hit Japan before. How is this short sighted?

Because the plant was built in the 60s and probably based on a 50s design. The world has changed a lot because of the mistakes of those in the 50s. The fact is you need to learn these things the hard way.

Statistician

ScumLord wrote: »

Because the plant was built in the 60s and probably based on a 50s design. The world has changed a lot because of the mistakes of those in the 50s. The fact is you need to learn these things the hard way.

Nuclear reactors are designed to try to contain nuclear criticality. Unfortunately, although the principle is simple enough and sounds quite a tempting way of generating electricity, the way it is achieved is rather complex. The more complex a system is, the more likely it is to go wrong.

After the Chernobyl disaster we heard how the design was improved (+/- void coefficient, graphite core, tipped control rods and containment) and such a thing could never happen to new reactors. Here we are again with Fukushima, with a new set of problems. New technology has teething problems so with each new design, we have a new set of problems to uncover.

The more reactors there are, the more likely there is to be an accident.

All these disasters are ultimately caused by human error, and that is their weakness. We can't afford human error with such systems. There are also lessons which have not been learned - most of them centred around money.

Solair

Oddly enough, the plants at that Fukushima complex are significantly older than Chernobyl 4, which was only built in 1983! It was only 3 years old when it exploded.

Fukushima Diaichi went online in 1971.

SeanW

Statistician wrote: »

After the Chernobyl disaster we heard how the design was improved (+/- void coefficient, graphite core, tipped control rods and containment)

The RBMK reactor used at Chernobyl-4 was known to have a dangerously high positive void co-efficient. The entire technology should never have been used in the first place, and it was not used outside the Former Soviet Union because Western entities understood the dangers very clearly.

Here we are again with Fukushima, with a new set of problems. New technology has teething problems so with each new design, we have a new set of problems to uncover.

Yet, Fukushima-1 was more than a decade older than Chernobyl-4.

The more reactors there are, the more likely there is to be an accident.

That's very simplistic. It would be much safer to have 100 Light Water Reactors than it would be to have even 10 RBMKs.

Also, if you use this as a justification to say "no more nuclear power" then you have to look at the alternatives. And they're all far worse, albeit in different and sometimes less visible ways.