DescentBB

“Let's get all the facts on the table first.”

And judging from the other events…that will be when?

We'd better start cleaning up our own house first, because it's a disaster in the making.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110317/ts ... 0317153926

Lothar wrote:

woodchip wrote:Broke it for you. I get my understanding of nuclear power from conspiracy theorists and journalists trying to drive page views, and therefore don't have a clue what I'm saying. The word "radiation" scares me.

Fixed that for you.

This earlier response by Lothar seems to be endemic with those who believe the reactors are being built as a win win fail safe engineering feat

"Highly radioactive water has been found for the first time outside one of the reactor buildings at Japan's quake-hit Fukushima nuclear plant, officials say.
Officials said the radiation scare inside the No 2 reactor was caused by a partial meltdown of fuel rods.
That water is the most contaminated to be found at the plant so far, exceeding 1,000 millisieverts per hour. "

It would seem that the explanation that in the unlikely event of a reactor core failure, the containment structure would keep the radiated material from escaping is now false. I am brought to mind of a line by the Jeff Goldbloom character in Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way". In this case radiated material will find a way to escape in spite of all the well thought out engineering that went into the design. So after 2 weeks we still have a worsening condition. So are the theorists still wrong? Do you still have confidence in design parameters and the ability to build a truly safe nuclear plant? If anything Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown us is that engineers are human and thus fallible.

Ferno wrote:so why bring up the name Chernobyl specifically if it's not meant to scare people? why not use other examples?

Update. Well Ferny, it is now a Chernobyl. So much for all the modern engineering and triple redundancy that some here believed would make it impossible for this to ever happen. Hopefully lessons are learned here:

"Japanese nuclear regulators said they raised the rating from 5 to 7 - the highest level on an international scale of nuclear accidents overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency - after new assessments of radiation leaks from the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant since it was disabled by the March 11 tsunami."

What I'd like to know is how they plan to deal with this mess long term. It's right next to the ocean, leaking radioactivity into the water through all sorts of holes and tunnels and I'd think it would be hard to entomb such a large radioactive mess, such as was done with Chernobyl. It's gone past the "we can fix the problem" stage and entered the "we need to bury it now" stage.

We're in something like 170% GDP debt to Japan. I think after all the help and all the stuff they're doing to the environment that affects us the debt should be cleared.

A bit of background:

IAEA wrote:On Tuesday, 12 April 2011, the IAEA provided the following information on the current status of nuclear safety in Japan:

1. Current Situation

Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains very serious, but there are early signs of recovery in some functions such as electrical power and instrumentation.

Provisional INES Level 7 Rating

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can confirm that the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has submitted a provisional International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) Level 7 rating for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This new provisional rating considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES and uses estimated total release to the atmosphere as a justification. Previously, separate provisional INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3.

Japanese authorities notified the IAEA in advance of the public announcement and the formal submission of the new provisional rating.

The provisional rating was determined by NISA after it received the results of the analysis conducted by the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES). NISA then applied the INES assessment methodology to calculate the total estimated release in terms of radiological equivalence to I-131. Based on this provisional assessment, NISA concluded that the accident would be provisionally rated INES Level 7 as per the definition below, taken from the INES User's Manual, 2008 Edition [pdf]:

Level 7

"An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of more than several tens of thousands of terabequerels of I-131."

NISA estimates that the release of radioactive material to the atmosphere is approximately 10% of the Chernobyl accident, which is the only other accident to have an INES Level 7 rating.

woodchip wrote:..
So are the theorists still wrong? Do you still have confidence in design parameters and the ability to build a truly safe nuclear plant? If anything Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown us is that engineers are human and thus fallible.

Aren't you using the example of damage sustained by a reactor that, as it turns out, WASN'T built to standards as an example of why building them to standards isn't good enough?

I don't think anyone ever claimed they can be 100% foolproof but the fact remains that if that plant hadn't suffered a massive quake combined with millions of tons of water slamming it and all of it's supporting emergency measures personel and infrastructure it would be safe today in spite of the failures to build it to specification.

I certainly still believe you can build them safe enough if you keep them out of earthquake territory. Much safer than hundreds of things you would never suggest we stop building in spite of the higher death toll they rack up annually ...like handguns, trampolines, swimming pools, refineries, airplanes, drug manufacturing plants, food processing factories, staircases, bathtubs, 5 gallon plastic buckets, etc. etc.

Ferno wrote:so why bring up the name Chernobyl specifically if it's not meant to scare people? why not use other examples?

are you in possession of another example that hit Level 7 on the International Atomic Energy scale?
I'm not. For what it's worth, EVERY report I heard or read today emphasized that to date, nuclear releases from the Japanese reactors were but a fraction of those at Chernobyl.

SilverFJ wrote:We're in something like 170% GDP debt to Japan. I think after all the help and all the stuff they're doing to the environment that affects us the debt should be cleared.

explain the above, because it bears no relation to reality. What, exactly would be '170% GDP debt'??
I mean, the entire US debt is around 100% GDP, Japan doesn't hold a huge percentage of that. For the record, speaking of debt, Japan is already at around 190% of their national GDP in debt, this situation is not coming at a good point on the curve for them, at all.

callmeslick wrote:

Ferno wrote:so why bring up the name Chernobyl specifically if it's not meant to scare people? why not use other examples?

are you in possession of another example that hit Level 7 on the International Atomic Energy scale?
I'm not. For what it's worth, EVERY report I heard or read today emphasized that to date, nuclear releases from the Japanese reactors were but a fraction of those at Chernobyl.

For the record, that comment was made before Fukushima rated a 7.

right you are, upon re-reading. Sorry.

When all is said and done, I think they might need a scale with higher numbers.

Spidey wrote:When all is said and done, I think they might need a scale with higher numbers.

how come Spinal Tap just came to mind( "it goes to 11")?

callmeslick wrote:right you are, upon re-reading. Sorry.

Also: reading the papers that day, they decided a sensationalist article took precedence over factual information. The comparison between the two incidents was intellectually dishonest at the very least.

I really wish the IAEA had waited a while to submit this upgrade, because it's done nothing but re-ignite the fear-mongering all over again. The fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing has changed about the situation on the ground from yesterday to today, and nothing that's happened will wind up being nearly as devastating as Chernobyl. We're not talking about needing a sarcophagus here.

Top Gun wrote:I really wish the IAEA had waited a while to submit this upgrade, because it's done nothing but re-ignite the fear-mongering all over again. The fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing has changed about the situation on the ground from yesterday to today, and nothing that's happened will wind up being nearly as devastating as Chernobyl. We're not talking about needing a sarcophagus here.

My non expert opinion vs. your non expert opinion…I bet you are wrong.

The IAEA themselves have stated that the situation on the ground remains "stagnant." This is simply a reflection of more comprehensive environmental readings being taken into account, not some sudden new development. And the physical condition of the reactors here is so vastly different than that of Chernobyl that something as extreme as a sarcophagus simply wouldn't be necessary. There's going to need to be some repair work done for sure, but the main containment structures are all largely intact.

Top Gun wrote:The IAEA themselves have stated that the situation on the ground remains "stagnant." This is simply a reflection of more comprehensive environmental readings being taken into account, not some sudden new development. And the physical condition of the reactors here is so vastly different than that of Chernobyl that something as extreme as a sarcophagus simply wouldn't be necessary. There's going to need to be some repair work done for sure, but the main containment structures are all largely intact.

Top Gun you should really check before making posts:

"The world's largest concrete pump, deployed at the construction site of the U.S. government's $4.86 billion mixed oxide fuel plant at Savannah River Site, is being moved to Japan in a series of emergency measures to help stabilize the Fukushima reactors."

And if you still think the radiation is minor:

"Ashmore said officials have already notified Shaw AREVA MOX Services, which is building the MOX plant for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, that the pump was being moved and will not be returned because it will become contaminated by radiation."

"It will be too hot to come back," Ashmore said."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-new ... clear-site

Why some of you still think this is some minor repairable incident is beyond me.

"Minor", certainly not. "Repairable" [edit: TG is correct below, "manageable" is more correct], eventually.

It's not anywhere near Chernobyl, but it's certainly surpassed Three Mile Island and other lesser catastrophes.

Honestly, in the last couple of weeks, I've been taken by surprise at the level of the problem. Like many people, I thought that once the active reaction was stopped (which happened immediately), the residual energy wouldn't be so difficult to deal with.

Woodchip, absolutely nothing you cited there contradicts what I said. The situation isn't "repairable" in the sense that those reactors will ever be usable again, but it is manageable in the sense that we're not going to have to build a massive concrete bunker over a reactor core that exploded and spewed out radiation over half a continent. There's a huge difference in scale between what's happening here and Chernobyl.

Foil wrote:Honestly, in the last couple of weeks, I've been taken by surprise at the level of the problem. Like many people, I thought that once the active reaction was stopped (which happened immediately), the residual energy wouldn't be so difficult to deal with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_ ... _accidents
see the discussion and references under "Cooling requirements"

Cooling is needed to remove decay heat from the reactor core even when a plant has been shut down.[32] Nuclear fuel releases a small quantity of heat under all conditions, but the chain reaction when a reactor is operating creates short lived decay products which continue to release heat despite shutdown.[33] Immediately after shutdown, this decay heat amounts to approximately 6% of full thermal heat production of the reactor.[32] The decay heat in the reactor core decreases over several days before reaching cold shutdown levels.[34] Nuclear fuel rods that have reached cold shutdown temperatures typically require another several years of water cooling in a spent fuel pool before decay heat production reduces to the point that they can be safely transferred to dry storage casks.[35] ...

... If the water in the unit 4 spent fuel pool had been heated to boiling temperature, the decay heat has the capacity to boil off about 70 tonnes of water per day (12 gallons per minute), which puts the requirement for cooling water in context.[40]

So it's only 6%, but that's 6% of a quite large amount of heat.

Yep, it's been educational. [Heh, 30+ credit hours of Physics coursework, and until this happened, I'd never really thought much about the energy from the decay products after the reaction is shut down.]

[quote="Top Gun" The situation isn't "repairable" in the sense that those reactors will ever be usable again, but it is manageable in the sense that we're not going to have to build a massive concrete bunker over a reactor core that exploded [/quote]

What do you thing the concrete pumps are for? Burying the reactors in concrete is evidence that for all they tried to fix things, they failed. They failed not because of good engineering design, they failed because of proper site location. They failed in forward thinking emergency scenarios as in putting the emergency back-up generators in below ground basement housing where the possibility of tsunami's is real. And most importantly they failed in informing the public of the scope of their failure until long after the reactors were burning wrecks.

So just exactly what do you do with a half a dozen broken reactors that will never be in service again?

woodchip wrote:What do you thing the concrete pumps are for? Burying the reactors in concrete is evidence that for all they tried to fix things, they failed.

The pumps are used to pump water -- these pumps were choosen for their booms and independence of external power, not because they are concrete pumps. They can be used to move concrete if necessary in the future tho.

Grendel wrote:

woodchip wrote:What do you thing the concrete pumps are for? Burying the reactors in concrete is evidence that for all they tried to fix things, they failed.

The pumps are used to pump water -- these pumps were choosen for their booms and independence of external power, not because they are concrete pumps. They can be used to move concrete if necessary in the future tho.

Instead of posting like a inept noob, you might actually try to read the link I provided. Since you can't be arsed to do so:

"According to Putzmeister's Web site, four smaller pumps made by the company are already at work at Fukushima pumping water onto the overheated reactors.

Initially, the pump from Savannah River Site, and another 70-meter Putzmeister now at a construction site in California, will be used to pump water -- and later will be used to move concrete.

"Our understanding is, they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete," Ashmore said, noting that the 70-meter pump can move 210 cubic yards of concrete per hour."

Yes, the pump may be used in the future to pour concrete, which fits right in with what I said about "repairing" the breaches that have occurred in reactor containment. But if you knew anything about the mechanics of what happened at Chernobyl, you'd understand that a massive site-enclosing structure just isn't necessary, by virtue of the fact that said containment is still largely intact. None of the Fukushima pressure vessels came close to flat-out exploding (nor could they physically), even if they may be leaking somewhat.

You posted the question "What do you thing the concrete pumps are for?" (despite the link you posted), you got your answer. From what I see about the work in Fukushima the "next phase" requiring "a lot of concrete" is nowhere in sight. Taking Mr. Ashmores statement as the basis for your argument is quite a long stretch (or should I say inept ?)

Top Gun wrote:Yes, the pump may be used in the future to pour concrete, which fits right in with what I said about "repairing" the breaches that have occurred in reactor containment. But if you knew anything about the mechanics of what happened at Chernobyl, you'd understand that a massive site-enclosing structure just isn't necessary, by virtue of the fact that said containment is still largely intact. None of the Fukushima pressure vessels came close to flat-out exploding (nor could they physically), even if they may be leaking somewhat.

Leaking "somewhat" implies structural fracturing. would you want to be near a gasoline tanker that was leaking "somewhat"?

woodchip wrote:Leaking "somewhat" implies structural fracturing. would you want to be near a gasoline tanker that was leaking "somewhat"?

red herring and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

---------------------

Grendel wrote:The pumps are used to pump water -- these pumps were choosen for their booms and independence of external power, not because they are concrete pumps. They can be used to move concrete if necessary in the future tho.

True, that is one of their uses. their other primary use is a concrete pump, from creating foundations to large concrete buildings.

woodchip wrote:Leaking "somewhat" implies structural fracturing. would you want to be near a gasoline tanker that was leaking "somewhat"?

It implies a breach somewhere, yes, but certainly not any sort of critical structural failure. A crack in a pipe somewhere does not a collapsed structure make.

Seriously, go read up on Chernobyl. Pay attention to the reactor design, and exactly what happened to it during the incident. Then come back and talk.

So TG how many lives do you think is acceptable to lose going into these reactors to “repair” them?

You don't have to answer, seeing how you ignored my last question. (kinda aimed at you)

Spidey wrote:So TG how many lives do you think is acceptable to lose going into these reactors to “repair” them?

You don't have to answer, seeing how you ignored my last question. (kinda aimed at you)

do you really expect him to answer such a loaded question?

Spidey wrote:So TG how many lives do you think is acceptable to lose going into these reactors to “repair” them?

You don't have to answer, seeing how you ignored my last question. (kinda aimed at you)

I honestly didn't even see your last question, since I was focused on responding to woodchip. But to answer it, while I don't know the specific medium- to long-range plans there may be for the site at the moment, I can make a few semi-educated guesses. The primary goal as of the last I heard was still to attempt to get the primary cooling systems fully operational, so that all of the reactors can be permanently stabilized. There are current efforts underway to remove some of the contaminated water that has pooled around the reactors and other structures. After that initial cleanup is done, and after the reactors are fully stabilized, I'd imagine that the engineers will be able to get a much more comprehensive picture of the status of each pressure vessel, and the fuel inside. At some point down the line, you can bet that the non-melted portions of the fuel (I don't know if they yet have a clear picture of how much, if anything, did melt) will be properly removed and disposed of. They'll also want to make sure that the containment buildings are all properly sealed again, so that any material which can't be easily removed will be safely contained within them.

A good comparison to make is the current status of Three Mile Island's Reactor 2. While pretty much all of the major radioactive material was cleaned up in the decade or two following the incident, there are still some remains there that have been pretty much left alone, as they're in a stable state and pose no risk to anyone. When the site as a whole is decommissioned, someone's going to have to go in and clean the rest up, but until then what's left is just fine sitting there. Now granted, TMI's reactor experienced less damage than those at Fukushima, but I'd imagine

And it's not acceptable to lose any lives while stabilizing these reactors...which isn't really a problem, because so long as the people over there follow proper safety standards, no lives will be lost. The reason that equipment like that pumper truck is being sent over, and why high-pressure water hoses were being used in the past, was to minimize direct human exposure to the site as much as possible. I'm sure remote devices will play a role at some point as well. But even when more direct human intervention is necessary, you can be damn sure that every worker on-site is having their daily exposure monitored...that's SOP with anything involving radiation. There was already an incident where two workers stood in fairly-contaminated water, which sounds to me like someone did something very wrong, but those workers were successfully treated for their exposure, and that incident is all the more incentive to make doubly-sure that something like it doesn't happen again.

Again, this isn't a situation like Chernobyl, where some poor firefighters were standing directly over an absurdly-radioactive blown-apart reactor without knowing at all that they wee essentially killing themselves. These people know what they're doing, and you can be sure that they're taking every precaution they can to minimize the risks involved.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Leaking "somewhat" implies structural fracturing. would you want to be near a gasoline tanker that was leaking "somewhat"?

It implies a breach somewhere, yes, but certainly not any sort of critical structural failure. A crack in a pipe somewhere does not a collapsed structure make.

Seriously, go read up on Chernobyl. Pay attention to the reactor design, and exactly what happened to it during the incident. Then come back and talk.

Did I say the reactors are designed as bad as Chernobyl? I did say the planning and placement of the reactors left a fair bit to be desired. In the end tho, Fukushima will be recorded as a level 7 disaster...the same as Chernobyl.

Thank you for answering, and yes of course there is only one logical answer to my second question. (asked only to make a point)

Well, TG you are very optimistic, I hope you are right.

Also understand, entombing the site after the fuel has been removed/stabilized seems like a good long term solution to isolate the site from the environment, in the case of another quake.

I never meant to imply some sort of emergency solution.

We shall see, what they end up doing…I just hope it’s the right thing.

woodchip wrote:Did I say the reactors are designed as bad as Chernobyl? I did say the planning and placement of the reactors left a fair bit to be desired. In the end tho, Fukushima will be recorded as a level 7 disaster...the same as Chernobyl.

The placement wasn't really all that much of an issue, if you're talking about them being in an earthquake zone in Japan in the first place. Any "normal" earthquake, even a major one, probably wouldn't have caused any significant issues. It's just that the plant wasn't prepared to handle a 9.0 megathrust quake...mainly because nothing is prepared to handle that. You simply can't prepare for a once-in-ten-lifetimes (if not more) event like this. And in the end, it wasn't even the earthquake itself that KO'd the reactors...the tsunami was what took out the backup diesel generators. I will grant that the location of those generators was very suspect, and that it should have been accounted for in the original design. If that had been the case, we probably wouldn't even know the name "Fukushima" right now.

And really, all that level 7 declaration means is that the incident has met certain criteria for radiation release and environmental effects. As has been noted, the total radiation release in this case is still less than a tenth of what was released at Chernobyl, and at least some portion of that was leaked into the ocean, which all things considered is a better place than over land. The radiation around the plant has diminished enough that recovery teams are now able to search for bodies within a six-mile radius, albeit with protective suits on.

callmeslick wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:We're in something like 170% GDP debt to Japan. I think after all the help and all the stuff they're doing to the environment that affects us the debt should be cleared.

explain the above, because it bears no relation to reality. What, exactly would be '170% GDP debt'??
I mean, the entire US debt is around 100% GDP, Japan doesn't hold a huge percentage of that. For the record, speaking of debt, Japan is already at around 190% of their national GDP in debt, this situation is not coming at a good point on the curve for them, at all.

Oh, yeah, sorry, I meant we're in debt to them around 170% of our annual GPD, meaning to pay them off we'd owe them 1.7 entire years of gross budget.