So my basic argument was ... even if the risk of accident was 0.0001% ... the magnitude and scale of damage made it not worth the risk.
I don't think we know the full story of what's going on at Japan. There's already been an explosion inside Reactor #1. They resorted to flooding some of the reactors with seawater, essentially destroying them, which means they were on the verge of meltdown.
They are presently unable to determine whether reactors #1 and/or #3 have in fact already at least partially melted down. This would be the most serious high profile nuclear incident since three mile island.
Moreover, nuclear reaction trace elements like cesium are already being detected in abnormally high levels around the reactor. Radiation at the facility is already above normal year-long safe exposure levels.
And as I f*cking post this, another explosion rips through the nuclear facility.
![[Image: Japan-Nuclear-Plant-Explosion1.jpg]](http://www.worldwidehippies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Japan-Nuclear-Plant-Explosion1.jpg)
See those squares? Yea, those are THE REACTORS. I'll give you one guess what's underneath the ominous cloud.
wow, the **** has hit the fan
And yet, I predict that less radiation is released in this accident than is released in the normal operation of coal power plants on a daily basis.
The safety of these nuclear plants is "defense in depth". The explosions are due to hydrogen gas and the destruction is outside the containment vessels of the reactors.
This is among the worst confluence of conceivable disasters that you would expect a nuclear plant to go through. I think this quake has been described as the worst - or perhaps one of the two worst - in modern history.
The environmental damage from cars being swept into the ocean is probably far worse than the nuclear plant.
The industrial plants that are burning in Japan will release pollution that may well reach across the Pacific.
The immediate neighborhood around these plants *may* be at risk of some contamination, but that remains pretty unlikely.
This is about the worst one-two punch that you can throw at any industrial plant of any kind and it is likely that the outcome will be nothing of real consequence except fear, uncertainty, and doubt. At least two of the reactors will probably never be operational again, with no real impact on the environment, even if there is a core meltdown.
Have fossil fuel plants fared as well?
Let's talk more about magnitude and scale in a week or so... both the magnitude and scale of what was thrown at these plants and the negative environmental and health outcomes of the nuclear industry through the horrible events on the other side of the world. We will probably have a very good idea of how bad the final outcome will be by that time.
Should there be mushroom clouds that envelope the plants and spread the radioactive waste from the plants across Japan and northern asia, I will certainly change my tune. If whatever radioactive waste that is released into the environment turns out to be insubstantial, will you continue your hysterical fear?
Also, let's introduce the basics of risk analysis into the discussion. Your outcome is governed by Probability multiplied by the Negative Consequences. To date we have (very unlikely times nil). How does that rate?
Incidentally, Chernobyl was the most serious accident since TMI. The Soviets could pretty well **** anything up in grand scale.
(03-14-2011 01:52 AM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]And yet, I predict that less radiation is released in this accident than is released in the normal operation of coal power plants on a daily basis.
The safety of these nuclear plants is "defense in depth". The explosions are due to hydrogen gas and the destruction is outside the containment vessels of the reactors.
This is among the worst confluence of conceivable disasters that you would expect a nuclear plant to go through. I think this quake has been described as the worst - or perhaps one of the two worst - in modern history.
The environmental damage from cars being swept into the ocean is probably far worse than the nuclear plant.
The industrial plants that are burning in Japan will release pollution that may well reach across the Pacific.
The immediate neighborhood around these plants *may* be at risk of some contamination, but that remains pretty unlikely.
This is about the worst one-two punch that you can throw at any industrial plant of any kind and it is likely that the outcome will be nothing of real consequence except fear, uncertainty, and doubt. At least two of the reactors will probably never be operational again, with no real impact on the environment, even if there is a core meltdown.
Have fossil fuel plants fared as well?
Let's talk more about magnitude and scale in a week or so... both the magnitude and scale of what was thrown at these plants and the negative environmental and health outcomes of the nuclear industry through the horrible events on the other side of the world. We will probably have a very good idea of how bad the final outcome will be by that time.
Should there be mushroom clouds that envelope the plants and spread the radioactive waste from the plants across Japan and northern asia, I will certainly change my tune. If whatever radioactive waste that is released into the environment turns out to be insubstantial, will you continue your hysterical fear?
Also, let's introduce the basics of risk analysis into the discussion. Your outcome is governed by Probability multiplied by the Negative Consequences. To date we have (very unlikely times nil). How does that rate?
Incidentally, Chernobyl was the most serious accident since TMI. The Soviets could pretty well **** anything up in grand scale.
Seriously? Do you REALLY believe all that crap you just wrote?
I do agree with your second to last sentence though. He did forget about Chernobyl.
(03-14-2011 12:31 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]And as I f*cking post this, another explosion rips through the nuclear facility.
See those squares? Yea, those are THE REACTORS. I'll give you one guess what's underneath the ominous cloud.
Marshmallows?
Not sure why but that was actually the first thing that came to my mind (me and Ray from Ghostbusters).
What I find most troubling is the seeming lack of urgency. I've spent enough time in Japan to know that they do things differently, and what we see and hear on the news may reflect some cultural differences getting lost in translation, but I'm not sure.
It's my understanding that the tsunami actually caused the problem, moreso than the earthquake. When the quake hit, the plant shut down and the emergency diesel generators kicked in to run the cooling pumps. The diesel generators were then swamped by the tsunami and knocked offline. Since then they've been trying to run pumps off backup batteries and some small portable generators, and they have not been able to keep enough cooling water flow that way to keep things cooled down. Hillary's statement about the US offering to provide coolant doesn't make much sense, inasmuch as that does not appear to be the problem. But what does appear to be the case is that the US offered to fly in some more powerful portable generators, and the Japanese refused--not sure why, other than cultural reasons that I do understand. What also appears to be the case is that use of sea water was delayed out of fear that use of sea water would mean having to decommission the reactor--duh, melting down kinda decommissions itself.
IIRC, the problem at TMI was caused in part, or at least made worse, when operator error caused the flow of cooling water to be shut off instead of increased at a critical juncture. But that was a heat of the battle decision. This seems to be an extended thought process over several days.
This is eeerily reminiscent of the response to the BP blowout last summer. Instead of "all hands on deck" BP tried one approach after another that would save their investment in the well well before finally doing what ended up working. And EPA seemed far more concerned that someone might move a comma in one of their regulations than they were that oil might actually get into the coastal marshes.
Umm, dude, when something is getting too hot you cool it off. When the something is a nuclear reactor, you do that any way you can. The first responsibility of TEPCO is to the people around that plant, just like the first responsibility of BP and the EPA was to protect the Gulf and its coastline. But in large corporations, just like large government bureaucracies, turf battles often trump common sense precisely when the latter is most critical.
It is too early to claim full scale disaster.
While the plant certainly is damaged, I'm floored that 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami did so little damage.
The failure seems to be with the cooling pumps, and if that is the issue, that is a very solvable engineering fix.
The US Navy aircraft carrier taskforce has set out further into international waters after detecting rising low level radiation.
(03-14-2011 08:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]The US Navy aircraft carrier taskforce has set out further into international waters after detecting rising low level radiation.
Oh how times change.
60 years ago you could watch a nuclear explosion from the decks of a Navy ship.
(03-14-2011 08:17 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]It is too early to claim full scale disaster.
While the plant certainly is damaged, I'm floored that 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami did so little damage.
The failure seems to be with the cooling pumps, and if that is the issue, that is a very solvable engineering fix.
Yes, if an earthquake of 8.9-9.0 magnitude had hit the Houston Ship Channel, followed by a 30-foot tsunami, I hate to think how bad things would be.
I do think there is a human tendency to hope for the best rather than act for the worst, and that does not serve us well in times like this.
(03-14-2011 08:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I do think there is a human tendency to hope for the best rather than act for the worst, and that does not serve us well in times like this.
Everything in Japan is designed for worse case.
Panic doesn't help the situation. The Japanese have been stellar in their preparation for, and handling of, the situation so far.
It will though be interesting to see the next wave (sorry) of tsunami technology. Is it more warning systems, is it more break waters, do they relocate towns?
I'm not sure I'd go as far as superb. Apparently they turned down a US offer to fly in some heavy duty portable generators that would have given them more pumping power, and I question the wait to use sea water for fear of having to decommission the reactor. But if they limit the damage to what has happened so far, it's probably good enough.
Whether it's good enough to avoid another 20 years of nay-saying about nuclear power is a different question. Bottom line--We are going to have to take some risks somewhere to solve our energy problem. And it won't be cheap.
(03-14-2011 02:28 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously? Do you REALLY believe all that crap you just wrote?
I have a close friend who is a nuclear engineer... he is in 100% agreement with owl. The design of these reactors are not anywhere close to the design of Chernobyl. His only issue with the whole situation is that they didn't take into account the possibility of a tsunami taking out their diesel generators. He thinks the media is making a bigger deal out of the situation that they really should, as there is no chance of any significant meltdown.
His line... "the media is concentrating on the reactors because they bring ratings, but the real news is the humanitarian issues with people not having access to food, clean water, or heat."
(03-14-2011 12:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Moreover, nuclear reaction trace elements like cesium are already being detected in abnormally high levels around the reactor. Radiation at the facility is already above normal year-long safe exposure levels.
Citation?
(03-14-2011 08:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]The US Navy aircraft carrier taskforce has set out further into international waters after detecting rising low level radiation.
Citation?
![[Image: japanquake640.jpg]](http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/japanquake640.jpg)
Looks perfectly safe and in control to me!
(03-14-2011 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What I find most troubling is the seeming lack of urgency. I've spent enough time in Japan to know that they do things differently, and what we see and hear on the news may reflect some cultural differences getting lost in translation, but I'm not sure.
...
Umm, dude, when something is getting too hot you cool it off. When the something is a nuclear reactor, you do that any way you can. The first responsibility of TEPCO is to the people around that plant, just like the first responsibility of BP and the EPA was to protect the Gulf and its coastline. But in large corporations, just like large government bureaucracies, turf battles often trump common sense precisely when the latter is most critical.
(03-14-2011 08:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='6346030' dateline='1300111433']
I'm not sure I'd go as far as superb. Apparently they turned down a US offer to fly in some heavy duty portable generators that would have given them more pumping power, and I question the wait to use sea water for fear of having to decommission the reactor. But if they limit the damage to what has happened so far, it's probably good enough.
Whether it's good enough to avoid another 20 years of nay-saying about nuclear power is a different question. Bottom line--We are going to have to take some risks somewhere to solve our energy problem. And it won't be cheap.
There is some discord in what you are saying. Nuclear plants are built close to water for this reason. If the core is close to meltdown, you need to cool it down quickly, and at this point this plant will probably be decommissioned no matter what, so whatever damage the sea water itself is really immaterial.
With regards to coolant, if they put in water without boron, I've heard that they could do more harm than good (see hydrogen gas).
With regards to apparent lack of urgency, they have or should have gone through virtually every possible scenario of what would happen during a disaster in this case. That is very much unlike the BP disaster where disaster planning seemed to vary widely from here versus Europe and the conditions under which they operated were vastly different.
In this case, I forget the phrase, but the weakness in their plan is that the source of the disaster cut off multiple backup systems at the same time (backup generators and the electric grid itself were knocked offline by the earthquake and tsunami). As I understand it, the water from the tsunami itself may also have damaged controls ... I doubt that we'll hear to what extent any time soon.
I could care less if the media or politicians act with urgency. When the media does it, you get things like this:
- Stories that talk about the explosion at Fukushima and then show images of burning oil refineries (oil fires last, hydrogen bursts don't)
- Stories explicitly about the nuclear plant that discuss radiation levels being above the lifetime exposure levels which end by indicating without qualification that the death toll is at 1600 and expected to reach at least 6000
- A moratorium on nuclear plant construction lasting for 30+ years
No-one should really care if
I or
GTS or
RobertN shows much urgency right now unless cell phone data plans, message board posts, or how much salt is put on your fries, respectively, can somehow prevent a nuclear plant from melting down.
I don't see any reason to believe that the Japanese are not acting with appropriate urgency on this issue given that they have problems that are far far more pressing at this time. How many people are displaced because of the earthquake and Tsunami? How many chemical emergencies do they have in the country at this time? Diverting resources needed to address those issues seems unwarranted and/or irresponsible.
If the people that have direct responsibility for addressing the nuclear plant are acting without urgency (has overtime not been approved? Beer cans observed onsite?), then that's another matter.
I do wonder if part of their disaster scenarios should include a sea-based power source (nuclear carrier, barge, etc). One suggestion is locating power sources physically higher so that a tsunami wouldn't affect it.
Also, it should be noted the Japanese are having major issues with another plant, Dai Gan, I believe further north. (it's mentioned in the CNN story.) I think Nuclear Power is an asset, no one in their right might would have predicted this disaster. Also, it was the initial quake that caused the emergency shutdown of the reactors when the primary coolant systems failed. It was the tsunami that followed that took out all the back up systems. and I would like to pointout the containment domes themselves have NOT breached. Just the surrounding buildings.
Quote:Shortly after Monday's explosion, Tokyo Electric warned it had lost the ability to cool Unit 2. Hours later, the company said fuel rods in that unit were fully exposed, at least temporarily.
The company was trying to channel sea water into the reactor to cover the rods, cool them down and prevent another explosion at the stricken plant.
Seventeen U.S. military personnel involved in helicopter relief missions were found to have been exposed to low levels of radiation upon returning to the USS Ronald Reagan, an aircraft carrier about 100 miles offshore.
U.S. officials said the exposure level was roughly equal to one month's normal exposure to natural background radiation in the environment, and after scrubbing with soap and water, the 17 were declared contamination-free.