Huge blast at Japan nuclear power plant

[SithDoughnut]

Except for the style of reactor used pumping of sea water will basically render the reactors completely inoperable on a permanent basis. The use of sea water signals that the authorities are taking this seriously, and are willing to take whatever steps are necessary regardless of cost.

This. The reactors appear to be write-offs, now it's just a case of cooling them down fast enough.

 

[Chajara]

Saw this posted over at SomethingAwful and thought maybe it'd be appreciated here: Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation « BraveNewClimate

 

[Breetai]

This stuff makes me want to cry...

ショック...

 

[Breetai]

Yes, there was an incident. But just like 3-Mile Island, the death count was... zero.

That is categorically false.

The immediate death count was zero, but do you not consider death as a result of cancer, leukemia, and respiratory problems, all caused by radiation from places like Three Mile Island, to be death? Do you not consider the long term affects of radiation to be substantial? How about babies born to parents that were exposed to radiation that have birth defects and sometimes shorter life spans as a result? Is not early death due to radiation considered.... death due to the effects of radiation?

That hardly sounds like "zero" to me.

Does that mean that nuclear power is a poor choice compared to, say, coal plants? I do not know, but do not go saying that death counts are zero just because there were no immediate deaths.

 

[Drekkan85]

That is categorically false.

The immediate death count was zero, but do you not consider death as a result of cancer, leukemia, and respiratory problems, all caused by radiation from places like Three Mile Island, to be death? Do you not consider the long term affects of radiation to be substantial? How about babies born to parents that were exposed to radiation that have birth defects and sometimes shorter life spans as a result? Is not early death due to radiation considered.... death due to the effects of radiation?

That hardly sounds like "zero" to me.

Does that mean that nuclear power is a poor choice compared to, say, coal plants? I do not know, but do not go saying that death counts are zero just because there were no immediate deaths.

If you actually look at the amount of radiation leakage in a vacuum, and not in terms of media hysteria, it wasn't a particularly large amount of radiation. I stand by my earlier statement unless you have categorical studies pointing out otherwise.

In this case we have radiation leakage in Japan. However, almost all of it is in the form of nitrogen - which loses it's radioactivity within about 5~10 seconds of release.

 

[Billnew]

This just doesn't make sense.

Japan took such great care in building earthquake resistant buildings, but they didn't have fail safes for the nuclear power plant?

They know the affects of radiation first hand.

After this is over, all nations need to look at how to prevent this in the future.

Am I understanding this right? The power plant doesn't have power to pump the cooling system to keep the core from overheating?

How about surrounding the core with water, possibly a lake? So the heat would disipate into the water even if the pumps stop working? I mean the building that houses the reactor, not the reacting material. That way the water is not radioactive waste. The water would act as a heat sink, giving a buffer to get the main cooling system back up.

We have seen two weather worst case scenerios. Katrina and now this. We must demand our leaders have plans for worst case scenerios, not just bad scenerios.
There is no place in the world that an eartquake can happen, and such, there is no place near an ocean or sea that a tsunami can't hit. So the combonation of events must be considered and a plan worked out ahead of time.
Katrina-a hurricane is possible along all coast lines, the chance of a hurricane doubling back to hit a city twice must be considered, and even more so when the city is below sea level next to an ocean.

The oil leak was not even close to worst case scenerio, but our leaders and the leaders of the industry had no idea what to do.

This should not end nuke-lar power, just remind everyone of the need to be prepared for every problem.

 

[SithDoughnut]

This just doesn't make sense.

Japan took such great care in building earthquake resistant buildings, but they didn't have fail safes for the nuclear power plant?

They did. They're using them now, and apparently they've worked in some of the reactors already.

Am I understanding this right? The power plant doesn't have power to pump the cooling system to keep the core from overheating?

The engines that were supposed to pump the coolant were destroyed in the tsunami, leaving the battery backup to do the job - but the batteries only had power for 8 hours. Since then they've got other systems in to pump the chambers with sea water.

How about surrounding the core with water, possibly a lake? So the heat would disipate into the water even if the pumps stop working? I mean the building that houses the reactor, not the reacting material. That way the water is not radioactive waste. The water would act as a heat sink, giving a buffer to get the main cooling system back up.

Liquid boils. That's been the main problem they've been facing since they started all this. The fuel rods take a long time to cool down, and they were at seriously high temperatures to start with.

This should not end nuke-lar power, just remind everyone of the need to be prepared for every problem.

Japan, working from what they knew, prepared the power plants for earthquake and tsunami situations - up to an 8.2. An 8.9/9.0 was too much.

 

[Drekkan85]

Billnew - as mentioned the Japanese DID take steps. Frankly, they prepared for a massively powerful earthquake and tsunami. The problem is the earthquake that hit them was more powerful than any previously conceived of (in Japan) and the resulting tsunami was higher. It's like saying "They should be prepared for magic machine gun wielding bears dropping from the sky and detonating the core!" - you can only do so much.

Given the scale of what happened, it shows just how awesome Japanese construction and defence in depth was - despite having every previous record smashed in terms of destructive potential they STILL managed to keep almost all of the reactors from having insurmountable problems.

Kudos to the Japanese really - and kudos for the response.

 

[Drekkan85]

Actually, it's really worth commenting on the way the media is portraying the nuclear angle (both mainstream and alt - like the Huff-post). Do they have experts such as the article linked earlier explaining in clear, scientific, and accurate language?

No, they have a headline "Nuclear Rods Exposed!" and then show a scene of devastation caused by the earthquake/tsunami. At best its sensationalist journalism. At worst it's fearmongering and instilling panic. It also really goes towards convincing me we need some kind of "truth in news reporting" requirement - if your site/show etc. is going to claim the title of "News Source" it has to meet some basic guidelines on portraying information in a factual and non-misleading manner.

 

[Breetai]

Actually, it's really worth commenting on the way the media is portraying the nuclear angle (both mainstream and alt - like the Huff-post). Do they have experts such as the article linked earlier explaining in clear, scientific, and accurate language?

No, they have a headline "Nuclear Rods Exposed!" and then show a scene of devastation caused by the earthquake/tsunami. At best its sensationalist journalism. At worst it's fearmongering and instilling panic. It also really goes towards convincing me we need some kind of "truth in news reporting" requirement - if your site/show etc. is going to claim the title of "News Source" it has to meet some basic guidelines on portraying information in a factual and non-misleading manner.

I 100% agree with you here.

Regarding my earlier post here, I was looking for cases of long term effects from Three Mile Island. I am finding... nothing substantial. Still, I am naturally very worried about radiation in Japan; justified or not.

 

[Brak]

Japan took such great care in building earthquake resistant buildings, but they didn't have fail safes for the nuclear power plant?

How many chances do you get to test these things in real life?