Japan Nuclear Meltdown Thread

[Bill]

I know its a tough job but I have a feeling that the Japanese are just not up to stopping this before there is a huge release of poisonous nuke stuff. If there hasen't been already.
Both the Americans and the French are saying that the Japanese have not been honest about the situation.


Your thoughts?

[bailewen]

Far enough away from us that it won't matter.
http://preparingyourfamily.com/fearmong ... -reactors/

For folks near the plant or those of us with friends in Japan, that's another matter. OTOH:
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybro ... xplanation

So no, I'm not worried about it.

[roger hao]

All I can say - if they decide to evacuate Tokyo
it would be time for the world to assess the situation.

[Steve James]

Well, it's expected that the government will not be totally "honest" because they have no idea of the possible extent of the damage or the leak. It is becoming a "worst possible" type scenario, however. When they have to resort to helicopters dropping water on the reactors, that's scary. Americans, outside of searchers, have been advised to get at least 50 miles from Fukushima. The Japanese residents within that area have started evacuating on their own. Otoh, there are people who, right now, are probably giving their lives to get the situation under control.

With respect to the future of nuclear energy, this will probably be more significant than Chernobyl. The problem with nuclear energy is just this type of unexpected catastrophe. However, it's like the disaster in the Gulf; it's not that the technology isn't sound; it's that nature can throw that technology a curve ball. I.e., imo, if an 8 earthquake or a 5 hurricane is possible, then preparing for a 9 or 10 is the minimum. If that isn't possible, then the risk isn't worth it.

Imo, the ideal technology is that which is the safest in the long and short term, even if it's the most expensive.

[aamc]

As counter point its worth reading this :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/16 ... wednesday/

also this rather interesting article :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14 ... _analysis/

What I think is also interesting is this :

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

That renewable energy sources can be even more dangerous than 'evil' nuclear power.

[Dr.Rob]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?ref=asia

[Dr.Rob]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?ref=asia

[Steve James]

also this rather interesting article :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14 ... _analysis/

Well, it was written on the 14th, and things have changed a bit since then. Ever single nuclear nation has reconsidered their safety standards and regulations. Anyway, here's a quote from the article above:

The unfolding Fukushima story has enormously strengthened the case for advanced nations – including Japan – to build more nuclear powerplants, in the knowledge that no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems.

Um, "no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems"? He's kidding, right?
Anyway, re:

What I think is also interesting is this :

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

That renewable energy sources can be even more dangerous than 'evil' nuclear power.

Well, that article refers to a dam failure. As you know, dams have failed long before reactors were even thought of. I'm not sure how that supports the idea that renewable energy sources are more 'evil' (:)) than nuclear power. Now, showing a solar power array burning up a forest or a wind-farm causing disruption in fish migrations, etc. But, dam failure? Nah.

[bailewen]

With respect to the future of nuclear energy, this will probably be more significant than Chernobyl. The problem with nuclear energy is just this type of unexpected catastrophe.

I thinks it's much more significant than Chernobyl because Chernobyl was a shitty plant run by a shitty government with little or no care for the safety of it's people. The Japanese plant appears to have been built extremely well with all sorts of safeguards which makes me question how you relate this point:

However, it's like the disaster in the Gulf; it's not that the technology isn't sound; it's that nature can throw that technology a curve ball. I.e., imo, if an 8 earthquake or a 5 hurricane is possible, then preparing for a 9 or 10 is the minimum. If that isn't possible, then the risk isn't worth it.

The disaster in the gulf, it turned out, WAS based on technology that wasn't sound. There was rampant corruption in it's design and even basic safeguards that are common on deep oil rigs around the world were not included because they wanted to save money. The gulf disaster was far closer to Chernobyl than to Fukushima . It was not caused by some unexpected, unprecedented, massive natural disaster. It was caused by a bunch of corporate cheapskates placing profit over safety.

[aamc]

I post the earlier article, which whilst it is wrong. I thought that it raised some interesting points. That the design exceeded its design specifications. I thought that it also helped to provide a comparative scale of the dangers involved. The news I've been watching
just flashes out danger radiation. It doesn't provide any indicators of the type of radiation, the half life of the radiation. Its serious yes,
but if it was a gas power plant failing wouldn't that also be serious ? I suppose what I was trying to show is some sort of balance to the nuclear power is dangerous. Hence the dam, all power generation is dangerous. That if you were to look at the way we generate power. You could argue that nuclear power has caused the least number of deaths. The deaths due to coal mining are significant, already last year the BP oil drilling, caused significant evironmental damages, deaths on the rig when it exploded. Every year people are killed in the Niger delta breaking into oil lines. Again the dam, I thought was another interesting case, it was breached and killed between 32,000 and 90,000 people. Yet somehow it doesn't raise the same fear as a nuclear power plant.

[Steve James]

Well, you're right that the BP oil spill was a failure of technology --that was supposed to stop the leak. There are several deep water wells that have been operating successfully. Afa as Fukushima compared to Chernobyl, it may end up being "worse", but we'll have to wait and see. At Fukushima, as well, it was a failure of the safety systems, NOT the reactor. The reactor shut down, just as planned. Unfortunately, there were secondary and tertiary backup systems that failed. For ex., iinm, a secondary electrical generator --to pump coolant-- was flooded by the tsunami waters because it was in the basement. Next time, you betcha, they'll put that system up high.

Afa the relative harm caused by a gas refinery, electrical substation, dam, you name it, the results of a catastrophic failure can be measured in weeks or months, not in terms of half-lives. It's true that disasters relating to those industries have cost far more lives than nuclear plants. Simple floods have. The Christmas tsunami took ten times as many lives. And so? Anyway, who's afraid of "nuclear"? How about fusion reactors? They're safer, and don't produce radioactive waste. There are just technological efficiency issues to be resolved. It'd be worth spending the cash to do it, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[Methods]

Nuclear power being safe or not, or what they should do etc.. is more up to the experts!

I personally cannot help within these subject and if I could I am in a position no one will listen so it is a waste of my breath. Instead I will use my breath to pray for the Japanese that are troubled and others that have been lost.

[chud]

The japanese nuclear plants are not a threat to the USA. And not as big a threat to Japan as the ignorant media is making it out to be.
The real tragedy here is the earthquake and tsunami.

[Iskendar]

The japanese nuclear plants are not a threat to the USA. And not as big a threat to Japan as the ignorant media is making it out to be.
The real tragedy here is the earthquake and tsunami.

This.

Seriously, 90% of what you've heard from the mainstream press (or from politicians) the last days is just plain WRONG. The comparisons with Chernobyl are particularly mindboggling: Fukushima has a problem with waste heat from decaying waste products, NOT a runaway fission reaction. The worst case scenario, the ominous 'total meltdown', is less impressive than it sounds. Yeah, cleaning up the site will be a bitch, the immediate surroundings will need to import their drinking water and veggies from elsewhere, and cancer statistics will go up a bit. Meanwhile, 20k people are missing, half a million are homeless in freezing conditions, and the self-centered West is whining whether they need to go buy iodine tablets or not. Our people disgust me.

[Iskendar]

For factual information, check this site from MIT. Very interesting reading.