# Japan's turn



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

This one looks pretty untidy.


*Massive 8.9-magnitude quake hits Japan*


----------



## Whiskers (11 March 2011)

kennas said:


> This one looks pretty untidy.
> 
> 
> *Massive 8.9-magnitude quake hits Japan*




Struth, thats a wooper!

I just tuned into 10 news and they are talking about a 10 meter tsumani.

They say Aus has just been put on tsumani watch along with Russia in the north to Hawaii in the east and NZ to the south.


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

Some of the footage is unbelievable.

Just a giant wash of water covering towns and destroying anything in it's path.

I hope that was isolated and not along the majority of the coast.

Otherwise, this is really, really, untidy.


----------



## Kimberly (11 March 2011)

Such a huge earthquake and catastrophic tsunami - I feel so sad for the poor people and animals that have been affected


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 March 2011)

I've got a bad feeling about Hawaii.  yikes.


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

The US west coast is on alert!

Crikey!!

I hope that's an over reaction.


----------



## wayneL (11 March 2011)

It's getting a bit shakey around the Pacific rim... what about this March 19-20 prediction?

***wayneL is stocking up on baked beans and beer.


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

Talk of Australia being hit.

Can't believe that?


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

New footage showing so much damage. Like war zone material. This is real trouble for Japan.


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

Australia denies threat.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/authorities-deny-australian-tsunami-threat-20110311-1br74.html


----------



## Whiskers (11 March 2011)

Yeah, saw some of whole buildings floating away... this boat must be at least 10m long and just being tossed around like a cork. 

Pity those poor souls on the highway when the wall of water hits them.


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Pity those poor souls on the highway when the wall of water hits them.



Yep, the footage shows the water crossing roads and just taking trucks with it. That's just one small spot on the coast where there happened to be a helicopter with a camera.


----------



## doctorj (11 March 2011)

I just heard from a colleague in Tokyo, it sounds very bad in parts of the country..



> It was so huge that I could not stand even in Tokyo. Still small quakes are occurring every 15 minutes. There will be a severe damage in Miyagi due to tsunami. It has swallowed a local airport, many houses and many moving cars. All transportation has stopped and may not be able to go home today.


----------



## skc (11 March 2011)

Doesn't sound like it hit major population centre so pretty lucky in a terrible situation.

I didn't used to feel disasters on a personal level as much as I do now.. probably after experiencing the QLD floods my empathy has really increased. Oh and the fact that the SPI went down another 80 points since close...


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

skc said:


> I didn't used to feel disasters on a personal level as much as I do now.. probably after experiencing the QLD floods my empathy has really increased. ..



Yep, I was in the Peru earthquake a few years ago and it is the only time I really thought I was about to die. 

(well, second)

I'm not so sure this is so isolated. Yes, it's just the coast, but it's a big coast, and a very populous country.


----------



## Whiskers (11 March 2011)

Certainly going to be a terrible night in the region.



> By Takashi Mochizuki and Megumi Fujikawa
> Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
> 
> TOKYO (Dow Jones) A massive 8.9-magnitude earthquake struck Japan Friday afternoon, causing damage in Tokyo and many injuries in the north where the quake was centered, and sending a tsunami crashing into the country's northeastern coast.
> ...


----------



## McCoy Pauley (11 March 2011)

That's a terrible disaster.

My aunt, who is Japanese, was going to fly back to Japan to see her family.  I'm fairly sure she hasn't yet left for Japan, but her family may well be badly affected by this earthquake and the resulting tsunami.

The BOM reckons that the Pacific islands of the Solomons and a few others will shield Australia from the tsunami.  Bad news for them.  The US authorities have issued a tsunami warning for 2.45am local time in Hawai'i and 7.45am local time on the west coast of the USA.


----------



## IFocus (11 March 2011)

time to wax up the surf board and sit out the back


----------



## bellenuit (11 March 2011)

_6.3 quake recorded in Samar, Philippines in the last ten minutes._

This was on Twitter 1 hour ago.....


----------



## Whiskers (11 March 2011)

It looks like about 9.00 pm Eastern time will be about when any tsunami will hit Indonesia, Png etc, and some time in the middle of the night or early morning if it reaches NZ.

I hope they are all keeping a lookout and no one is camping on the beach. 

IT could be trouble... my local (Bundaberg) high tide appears to be forcast for 2.5m at 1.18am Sat morning. So I suppose it's possible that height may get a bit of a nudge higher since any tsunami would be pushing with it. I reckon even a .5 m tide surge will cause a few problems along many areas of the Qld coast since 2.5 m is a fairly big tide for here. 

I think it looks like it will catch at least a half rising tide for Png and Indonesia also.



> Waves may reach the Philippines at 9:55 a.m. Greenwich Meantime, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said in a bulletin, advising authorities to “take appropriate action.”
> 
> The center issued warnings for Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia, among other countries.
> 
> ...


----------



## Whiskers (11 March 2011)

Just found this chart which should give an indication of when any tsunami will be felt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ced-killer-tidal-waves.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## bellenuit (11 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Just found this chart which should give an indication of when any tsunami will be felt.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ced-killer-tidal-waves.html?ito=feeds-newsxml




After saying Australia was not on Tsunami alert, that has been changed in the last hour to Australia now being on Tsunami alert.

Take care those on the north and east coasts.


----------



## Julia (11 March 2011)

kennas said:


> Some of the footage is unbelievable.
> 
> Just a giant wash of water covering towns and destroying anything in it's path.
> 
> ...



Um, Kennas, "untidy"?????
In the world of euphemisms, this would appear to be an extreme example.




skc said:


> I didn't used to feel disasters on a personal level as much as I do now.. probably after experiencing the QLD floods my empathy has really increased.



Not at all to be dismissive of the tragedy of the Japan earthquake and tsunami which is horrific, the empathy thing is interesting.

When I heard the news I thought 'oh how dreadful' but to be honest it was an objective reaction but devoid of inflicting on me any personal level of distress.

So different from the Christchurch earthquake where all the buildings destroyed were a part of my life and where my concern was for family and friends who may have been killed.

Some years ago the term 'compassion fatigue' became popular.  It resonated with my own sense that I had only so much  capacity to feel distress/sadness etc without being personally submerged, and so there seemed to be a cut off point of empathy.

I hope to raise this is not to be insensitive to the tragedy that is unfolding in Japan.
I certainly don't mean to be.


----------



## Sean K (11 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Um, Kennas, "untidy"?????
> In the world of euphemisms, this would appear to be an extreme example.
> 
> Some years ago the term 'compassion fatigue' became popular.  It resonated with my own sense that I had only so much  capacity to feel distress/sadness etc without being personally submerged, and so there seemed to be a cut off point of empathy.



Yes, very untidy! 

Sorry, my term for cataclysmic disaster!!

Understand your feelings. How did any soldier get though WWI or II? 

We must be able to shut off to some degree, but watch out for compensating later.


----------



## skc (11 March 2011)

kennas said:


> Yep, I was in the Peru earthquake a few years ago and it is the only time I really thought I was about to die.
> 
> (well, second)
> 
> I'm not so sure this is so isolated. Yes, it's just the coast, but it's a big coast, and a very populous country.




I was in the Galapogas Islands when the Chilean earthquake hit last year, and they issued a tsunami warning... it was panic everywhere. We were supposed to go diving that day so I grabbed my snorkel...



Whiskers said:


> Just found this chart which should give an indication of when any tsunami will be felt.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ced-killer-tidal-waves.html?ito=feeds-newsxml




Hawaii should be OK. Apparently there is no continental shelf around these islands so the wave doesn't break... that's what I've learned from the Galapogas anyway.



Julia said:


> So different from the Christchurch earthquake where all the buildings destroyed were a part of my life and where my concern was for family and friends who may have been killed.
> 
> Some years ago the term 'compassion fatigue' became popular.  It resonated with my own sense that I had only so much  capacity to feel distress/sadness etc without being personally submerged, and so there seemed to be a cut off point of empathy.
> 
> ...




During the QLD Brisbane floods this year, Brazil was experiencing even worse conditions and hords of people died... but hardly anyone bat an eyelid in Australia. No one can be sensitive to everyone everywhere.

I have been to Japan a few times for holidays so it always feel as if I have some connection to that place.


----------



## skc (11 March 2011)

skc said:


> Hawaii should be OK. Apparently there is no continental shelf around these islands so the wave doesn't break... that's what I've learned from the Galapogas anyway.




Just googled and I was pretty wrong... take care Hawaii.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 March 2011)

bellenuit said:


> After saying Australia was not on Tsunami alert, that has been changed in the last hour to Australia now being on Tsunami alert.
> 
> Take care those on the north and east coasts.



Well Bellenuit, New Guinea, The Indonesian Archipelago and The Great Barrier Reef will block or quash any tidal wave.


Is the San Andreas fault next?


----------



## Calliope (12 March 2011)

The Philippines and Taiwan were unscathed.



> Taiwan roads reopened and guests at a Philippines resort reported no unusual waves after Japan’s strongest earthquake in at least a century triggered tsunami warnings across the Pacific, including the U.S. west coast.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...laced-on-tsunami-alert-after-japan-quake.html


----------



## Slipperz (12 March 2011)

After my personal experiences working  as a white monkey with the Japanese quite frankly after the respect they afforded me I wouldn't give a rats ass if the whole archipeligo sunk into the Pacific never to be seen again.

Looked like some good surfing to me


----------



## DB008 (12 March 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well Bellenuit, New Guinea, The Indonesian Archipelago and The Great Barrier Reef will block or quash any *tidal wave*.
> 
> 
> Is the San Andreas fault next?




Tsunami, not "tidal wave".


----------



## Calliope (12 March 2011)

Slipperz said:


> After my personal experiences working  as a white monkey with the Japanese quite frankly after the respect they afforded me I wouldn't give a rats ass if the whole archipeligo sunk into the Pacific never to be seen again.
> 
> Looked like some good surfing to me




It is not surprising that with an attitude like yours the Japanese despised you.


----------



## Whiskers (12 March 2011)

Interesting graphic of the wave height across the pacific.

A bit of damage reported at Hawaii, Alaska and California up to 2.5m waves on the beach in places tossing boats and piers around. 

Interestingly, I've heard of no damage at Guam, Png, Philippines etc... but in Japan itself while it may have missed the heavier populated areas, the loss of farms, crops and livestock in particular will be a precious loss to them, on top of the human loss.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...i-struck-giant-waves-sweep-Pacific-Ocean.html


----------



## Solly (12 March 2011)

This is from California.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (12 March 2011)

But wait, there's more. 

Worries of a radiation leak now, on "Nuclear alert", confirmed 402 dead and expected to be over 1000. 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/japan-tsun...reds-dead-in-japanese-quake-tsunami-disaster/


----------



## Agentm (12 March 2011)

critical to the disaster is the ability to contain the overheating at the fukushima.

how quickly they can get electricity to the plant, and repair the damaged pumps and get that coolant in will determine what the ultimate outcome will be

the us is flying in coolant and hilary clinton is putting all efforts that the US can muster to assist

its about 24 hour in terms of time left for a fix, and the quicker the better

Chernobyl type outcome is possible, if no power is restored to the plant and they cannot get the plant to be repaired and get some function with the coolant

fingers crossed here for the japanese, the disaster of the ongoing earthquakes is enough, but the attention to the fukushima nuclear power plant is paramount.






	

		
			
		

		
	
.


----------



## Calliope (12 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Um, Kennas, "untidy"?????
> In the world of euphemisms, this would appear to be an extreme example.
> 
> Not at all to be dismissive of the tragedy of the Japan earthquake and tsunami which is horrific, the empathy thing is interesting.
> ...




It's a matter of perspective There is more grief and mourning for an Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan, than for the tens of thousands drowned and millions displaced in the Pakistan floods, which hardly created a ripple on these threads. We were also quite "ho hum" about the massive Haiti disaster.

Our interest and empathy grows in proportion to the number of Australians who could be endangered.

Having spent some time in Japan I grew to admire and respect them and can feel more angst.


----------



## drsmith (12 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> critical to the disaster is the ability to contain the overheating at the fukushima.



The cooling system has failed at a second reactor.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-11-japan-quake-reactors_N.htm


----------



## Solly (12 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> The cooling system has failed at a second reactor.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-11-japan-quake-reactors_N.htm




drsmith, here's the latest Press Release from TEPCO

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031211-e.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> Tsunami, not "tidal wave".



Gee fella, depends on who schooled you hey?



> tidal wave
> n.
> 1. The swell or crest of surface ocean water created by the tides.
> 2.a. An unusual, often destructive rise of water along the seashore, as from a storm or a combination of wind and high tide.
> ...





> tidal wave
> noun
> Definition of TIDAL WAVE
> 1. something overwhelming especially in quantity or volume <a tidal wave of tourists>
> ...





> tidal wave
> noun
> 
> 1. The swell or crest of surface ocean water created by the tides.
> ...


----------



## trainspotter (12 March 2011)

Ummmm ........ didn't Weather Bill predict this with a game of cards? 

I went searching for the thread but could not find it?


----------



## prgudula (12 March 2011)

http://www.24dash.com/news/communit...00-times-more-powerful-than-New-Zealand-quake

and what is it was reported in Japan
http://tenki.jp/earthquake/detail-3611.html


----------



## trainspotter (12 March 2011)

"But the financial markets also need to consider the economic costs and the implications of the disaster for the public finances. *These could be considerable*."

Japan is burdened by the industrialised world's biggest debt, which runs close to 200 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/8998319/japan-earthquake-risks-fiscal-crisis/


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> its about 24 hour in terms of time left for a fix, and the quicker the better
> 
> Chernobyl type outcome is possible, if no power is restored to the plant and they cannot get the plant to be repaired and get some function with the coolant



An unfortunate but timely reminder that no matter what anyone may claim, NOTHING man does is totally immune from catastrophic failure. NOTHING.

If we have enough nuclear plants, aeroplanes, trains, buses, industrial plants or whatever then sooner or later one of them will be involved in a disaster. That's life and something we must accept if we choose to have these things. You are not 100% safe on a plane, however small the risk might be, and there is no such thing as a 100% safe nuclear plant either.


----------



## DB008 (12 March 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Gee fella, depends on who schooled you hey?




Bingo. (I wasn't having a go at you Wysiwyg)
I was taught in Geography that the correct terminology was Tsunami and not tidal wave as tidal waves are usually generated from the tide, in this case, it wasn't.



> *tsu·na·mi*
> /tsʊˈnɑmi/ Show Spelled[tsoo-nah-mee] Show IPA
> –noun
> an unusually large sea wave produced by a *seaquake *or undersea volcanic eruption.
> ...








> *tidal wave*
> 
> –noun
> 1.
> ...




Either which way, what has happened has had a devastating impact on Japan. I was watching the news last night (live broadcast) and my jaw dropped.


----------



## Solly (12 March 2011)

Breaking: reports out of Japan say quake-hit nuclear power plant may be experiencing nuclear meltdown.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/#entry-6a00e0097e4e688833014e86a968ec970d


----------



## IFocus (12 March 2011)

Solly said:


> Breaking: reports out of Japan say quake-hit nuclear power plant may be experiencing nuclear meltdown.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/#entry-6a00e0097e4e688833014e86a968ec970d





Not good if true the plant work force will be getting an extreme dose.


----------



## Solly (12 March 2011)

> *Nuclear safety panel says meltdown possible.*
> 
> *'No Chernobyl possible'*
> 
> ...




http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/03/20113124353222667.html


----------



## IFocus (12 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> "But the financial markets also need to consider the economic costs and the implications of the disaster for the public finances. *These could be considerable*."
> 
> Japan is burdened by the industrialised world's biggest debt, which runs close to 200 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/8998319/japan-earthquake-risks-fiscal-crisis/




Japans debt is extreme and there is no coming back with out extreme austere measures. Although they have managed to borrow from local savings at low interest rates for a long time that option is now running out an external financing will have to be used 

John Mauldins description of Japans government debt as a bug in search of a windscreen is very much on the money. 

Some time in the next 5 to 20 years there will be a splat.............is this the event that could bring the time frame forward who knows.


----------



## skyQuake (12 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> Chernobyl type outcome is possible, if no power is restored to the plant and they cannot get the plant to be repaired and get some function with the coolant
> 
> fingers crossed here for the japanese, the disaster of the ongoing earthquakes is enough, but the attention to the fukushima nuclear power plant is paramount.




Chernobyl style meltdown highly unlikely. Reactor design was faulty: positive void coeff at low power levels (like now) caused it to go into a positive feedback loop.
That technology has been long replaced - even if no-one attends the power station for the next few days, damage would be limited to leakages rather than explosions.



trainspotter said:


> Ummmm ........ didn't Weather Bill predict this with a game of cards?
> 
> I went searching for the thread but could not find it?



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17091

Couple of months and a few thousand kilometers off. Not bad in my books


----------



## Whiskers (12 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> Tsunami, not "tidal wave".






Wysiwyg said:


> Gee fella, depends on who schooled you hey?






DB008 said:


> Bingo. (I wasn't having a go at you Wysiwyg)
> I was taught in Geography that the correct terminology was Tsunami and not tidal wave as tidal waves are usually generated from the tide, in this case, it wasn't.




I understand it's a bit of an idiosyncrasy by meteorologists, geologists etc to try to distinguish between waves from the influence of the moon (tides) and waves caused by other influences. 

But apparently even tsunami isn't quite strictly correct as it is derived from Japanese meaning a harbor wave.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 March 2011)

skyQuake said:


> That technology has been long replaced - even if no-one attends the power station for the next few days, damage would be limited to leakages rather than explosions.



This was on the news tonight.



> Explosion at quake-hit nuclear plant
> 
> Updated 11 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (12 March 2011)

*BBC - Massive explosion at Japan nuclear power plant*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12721498


----------



## drsmith (12 March 2011)

The video footage kinda speaks for itself. It looks like one of the four cube buildings at the reactor site has been blown to bits.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2011)

skyQuake said:


> Chernobyl style meltdown highly unlikely. Reactor design was faulty: positive void coeff at low power levels (like now) caused it to go into a positive feedback loop.
> That technology has been long replaced - even if no-one attends the power station for the next few days, damage would be limited to leakages rather than explosions.



According to local news (Australia) and also the BBC, there has already been a rather large explosion at the plant.

What happens now if there is another earthquake with the plant already in the condition it is in? What if the earthquake had been directly under the plant itself?

Nuclear power is not totally safe, nor is anything else. Someday, the worst case scenario will likely happen just as all sorts of other "totally safe" things will occasionally go wrong.

On a practical note, regardless of what happens now I wouldn't want to be in the business of selling nuclear reactors that's for sure. If the Japanese can't build these things to be earthquake proof then it's going to be rather hard to argue that anyone else could or would. The Japanese aren't exactly backward when it comes to engineering.

Short term, taking these reactors off-line (and I'm guessing that we're talking about a major shut down here of these plants and probably several others too) will increase demand for fuel oil (well, it will assuming they've still got something left in Japan to actually use electricity...). Oil is the main marginal source of electricity in Japan, with nuclear, coal and gas power plants generally running 24/7 with little spare capacity to make up for the loss of these reactors. That leaves the oil-fired plants, of which Japan has many that are seldom used, to make up the shortfall.

As a very rough indication, for each 1000 MW of nuclear taken off line, expect to see 35,000 - 40,000 barrels per day of fuel oil used to make up for the loss. If fuel oil isn't available then it is technically quite possible to just burn raw crude oil in the power stations instead. 

Note: I'm talking about a relocation of production to existing oil-fired plants that are seldom used (the nuclear, coal and gas plants largely replaced them) and not converting the damaged nuclear plants to fossil fuel. These oil-fired plants are generally fairly old but they can be made to work assuming the earthquake hasn't destroyed them. Japan does, of course, have far more serious problems than power generation right now - I'm just commenting here due to the effect on the oil markets etc given that this is an investment forum.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> The video footage kinda speaks for itself. It looks like one of the four cube buildings at the reactor site has been blown to bits.



Without knowning the technical details of the plant in question, that building looks like a reactor to me.

The rest of the equipment at a nuclear plant is much the same as in a coal-fired plant and is housed in relatively low hall-like buildings (turbines and alternators) plus some fairly conventional workshops, offices etc and a switchyard which is normally outside and looks much like any sub-station. 

The big structures at power plants are the boilers (regardless of fuel source - coal, oil, nuclear reactor are all pretty big) and cooling towers (needed only where sea water is not available so not used at all plants). The only other big things are oil tanks, but they aren't needed at a nuclear plant. So I'd speculate that the building shown in the video, whilst not clear (at least not on my computer...), probably was a reactor.


----------



## drsmith (12 March 2011)

Referring to the image below, I'd say it was the right most square building.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Referring to the image below, I'd say it was the right most square building.



Looking at that plant, what you have is the long hall-like buildings in the foreground which house the turbines and alternators. Behind that there are 4 square reactor buildings. Overall, it's a pretty normal power plant layout.

Looks like we have a nuclear reactor explosion here... If a reactor really has blown up, and that is what the video seems to show, then that's not a good situation...


----------



## drsmith (12 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Looks like we have a nuclear reactor explosion here... If a reactor really has blown up, and that is what the video seems to show, then that's not a good situation...



The video of the plant at the start of the ABC news (ABC 24 7pm local Perth) shows the remains of the building.

A skeletal structure appears largely intact, however, the walls and roof are gone. The image is too distant to see any detail inside.


----------



## skyQuake (12 March 2011)

Oh snap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12721498

You can actually see the steam explosion before the rest of the rubble and debris. So thats the bio dome gone.

Still skeptical of fission materials released into the atmosphere as plant design is completely different though...


----------



## DB008 (12 March 2011)

From Reuters

WRAPUP 12-_Radiation leaking from Japan's quake-hit nuclear plant _

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/japan-quake-idUSL3E7EC07M20110312


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2011)

What we can say with certainty (based on the videos etc) is that the outer structure, that is the building the reactor is in, has been effectively destroyed.

What we don't know is exactly what has happened inside. It could simply be a steam explosion that has destroyed the building. Or it could be an actual nuclear release. Or both. Either way though, things certainly aren't good in any situation where you end up unintentionally blowing up a building regardless of how it actually happened. 

One certainty is that the reactor can be considered destroyed in terms of normal operation - I very much doubt it will ever be repaired and put back into service and it's certainly not going to be up and running anytime soon.

Whatever happens now, this is already a significant incident. The reactor is effectively destroyed as a working power plant, people were almost certainly killed in the explosion, and at least some radiation is known to have been released. An actual melt down would make things far worse, but it is already a bad situation as it stands now. 

All that said, to keep things in perspective if there is no major nuclear material release then it ends up being nothing more than a power plant destroyed following an earthquake. If that is the end result then it is no worse than a boiler explosion at a coal power plant. Not good, but not a catastrophy. Let's hope that is the end result, though to be honest I'm not overly confident. 

If there has been a steam explosion and the outer structure is blown to pieces then that in itself isn't going to help with cooling the reactor on an ongoing basis. Even if an explosion like that happened somewhere else, for example at a department store, office building or a workshop, once you've destroyed the structure etc it becomes rather difficult to maintain any sort of order inside when everything is surronded by rubble. If they were having trouble cooling the reactor previously, then having had that explosion is not likely to help the situation that's for sure.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> What we can say with certainty (based on the videos etc) is that the outer structure, that is the building the reactor is in, has been effectively destroyed.
> 
> What we don't know is exactly what has happened inside. It could simply be a steam explosion that has destroyed the building. Or it could be an actual nuclear release. Or both. Either way though, things certainly aren't good in any situation where you end up unintentionally blowing up a building regardless of how it actually happened.
> 
> ...




It certainly does not look good.

gg


----------



## Agentm (13 March 2011)

the nuclear disaster is only in its infancy, there are many combined reactors all at various stages of extreme.. with no site power still for fukushima daiichi, the first 3 units are at critical levels, with one already experiencing an explosion.  the death toll and injuries, physical and radiation from the explosions are increasing







*Fukushima Daiichi 
*
*Unit 1*
- 439 MWe BWR, 1971
- Automatically shut down
- Water level decreasing
- Pressure release implemented
- Explosion observed  

- Containment believed intact
- Seawater injection has started
- Radiation levels unchanged after
  explosion*Unit 2*
- 760 MWe BWR, 1974
- Automatically shut down
- Water level lower but steady
- Preparations for pressure release
*Unit 3*
- 760 MWe BWR, 1976
- Automatically shut down
- Preparations for pressure release
*Unit 4*
- 760 MWe BWR, 1978
- Shut for periodic inspection

*Unit 5*
- 760 MWe BWR, 1978 
- Shut for periodic inspection
*Unit 6*
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1979
- Shut for periodic inspection

*Fukushima Daini  *
*Unit 1*
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1982
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
*Unit 2 *
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1984
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
*Unit 3*
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1985
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
*Unit 4*
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1987
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
_From World Nuclear News._
*Attention is focused on the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini  nuclear power plants as Japan struggles to cope in the aftermath of its  worst earthquake in recorded history. An explosion has been seen at the  site and seawater is now being injected to the plant.* 
 Three of Fukushima Daiichi's six reactors were in operation when  yesterday's quake hit, at which point they shut down automatically and  commenced removal of residual heat with the help of emergency diesel  generators. These suddenly stopped about an hour later, and this has  been put down to tsunami flooding by the International Atomic Energy  Agency (IAEA).
The loss of the diesels led the plant owners Tokyo  Electric Power Company (Tepco) to immediately notify the government of a  technical emergency situation, which allows officials to take  additional precautionary measures.

For many hours the primary  focus of work at the site was to connect enough portable power modules  to fully replace the diesels and enable the full operation of cooling  systems. 

*Pressure and releases *

Without  enough power for cooling systems, decay heat from the reactor cores of  units 1, 2 and 3 has gradually reduced coolant water levels through  evaporation. The consequent increase in pressure in the coolant circuit  can be managed via pressure release valves. However, this leads to an  increase in pressure within the reactor building containment. Tepco has  said that the pressure within the containment of Fukushima Daiichi 1 has  reached around 840 kPa, compared to reference levels of 400 kPa. 

The  company has decided to manage this "for those units that cannot confirm  certain levels of water injection" by means of a controlled release of  air and water vapour to the atmosphere. Because this water has been  through the reactor core, this would inevitably mean a certain release  of radiation. The IAEA said this would be filtered to retain radiation  within the containment. Tepco has confirmed it was in the process of  relieving pressure at unit 1 while preparing to do the same for units 2  and 3

*Explosion *

Television cameras  trained on the plant captured a dramatic explosion surrounding unit 1 at  around 6pm. Amid a visible pressure release and a cloud of dust it was  not possible to know the extent of the damage. The external building  structure does not act as the containment, which is an airtight  engineered boundary within. Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano appeared  on television to clarify that the explosion had damaged the walls and  roof of the reactor building but had not compromised the containment.  

Monitoring  of Fukushima Daiichi 1 had previously shown an increase in radiation  levels detected emerging from the plant via routes such as the exhaust  stack and the discharge canal. Tepco have said that the amount of  radioactive material such as iodine it is detecting have been  increasing. The amount of radiation at the site boundary now exceeds a  regulatory limit triggering another set of emergency precautions. 

To  protect the public from potential health effects of radioactive  isotopes of iodine that could potentially be released, authorities are  preparing to distribute tablets of non-radioactive potassium-iodide.  This is quickly taken up by the body and its presence prevents the  take-up of iodine should people be exposed to it.

The injection  of seawater into the building started at 8.20pm and this will be  followed by addition of boric acid, which is used to inhibit nuclear  reactions. 

Over the last several hours evacuation orders for  local residents have been incrementally increased and now cover people  living within 20 kilometres of the power plant. 

*Raised temperatures   *

Meanwhile  at adjacent Fukushima Daini, where four reactors have been shut down  safely since the earthquake hit, Tepco has notified government of  another emergency status.  

Unit 1's reactor core isolation cooling system had been operating normally, and this was later supplemented by 
a  separate make-up water condensate system. However, the latter was lost  at 5.32am local time when its suppression chamber reached 100 ºC. This  led Tepco to notify government of another technical emergency  situation.  

Tepco has announced it has decided to prepare for  controlled releases to ease pressure in the containments of all four  units at Fukushima Daini.   

A three kilometre evacuation is in  progress, with residents in a zone out to ten kilometres given notice of  potential expansion. 

*Workers *

A  seriously injured worker was trapped within Fukushima Daiichi unit 1 in  the crane operating console of the exhaust stack and is now confirmed to  have died. Four workers were injured by the explosion at the same  reactor and have been taken to hospital. A contractor was found  unconscious and taken to hospital. 

Two workers of a 'cooperative firm' were injured, said Tepco; one with a broken bone.

At  Fukushima Daiini unit 3 one worker received a radiation dose of 106  mSv. This is comparable to levels deemed acceptable in emergency  situations by some national nuclear safety regulators. 
The whereabout of two Tepco workers remains unknown.


----------



## Solly (13 March 2011)

Latest presser from TEPCO (as of 2am March 13th)

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031301-e.html


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2011)

A clearer image of the exploded reactor building.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/13/3162581.htm



> The plant has leaked radiation, *but Tepco says the structure encasing the reactor had collapsed at the time of the aftershock but the steel reactor inside it was not ruptured*.



Hmmm. Fascinating.


----------



## Solly (13 March 2011)

Two more pressers

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031303-e.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2011)

TEPCO generates 62% of its electricity from sources other than nuclear power. For Japan as a whole that figure is 70%.

Nowhere have I seen reports of any serious concern about Japanese coal, oil, gas or hydro power plants following the earthquake. But right here on ASF and in countless other places, the situation at a nuclear power station has become the main focus of concern following the earthquake. Millions homeless, vast areas destroyed and yet the main focus is on a power station.

That this situation should arise tells me all I need to know about the virtues of nuclear power. At best, it's a massive liability when something goes wrong. As I said, nobody's in a panic about thermal or hydro plants, indeed the hydro plants in particular are continuing to function as is quite a bit of the thermal (coal, oil, gas) generation whilst nuclear output has come to a standstill. 

I accept that some countries such as Japan may well need to use nuclear power, but there is an undeniable downside to these plants no matter how well they are built. The earthquake could have been stronger, and it could have been right under the power plant...


----------



## Agentm (13 March 2011)

*(CNN)* -- The powerful earthquake that unleashed a  devastating tsunami Friday appears to have moved the main island of  Japan by 8 feet (2.4 meters) and shifted the Earth on its axis.


 "At this point, we know that one GPS station moved (8 feet), and we  have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan  showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about  that much shift of the land mass," said Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist  with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html?hpt=T1


----------



## Agentm (13 March 2011)

Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said March 12  that the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 nuclear plant could  only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core, Japanese daily  Nikkei reported. This statement seemed somewhat at odds with Japanese  Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano’s comments earlier March 12, in  which he said “the walls of the building containing the reactor were  destroyed, meaning that the metal container encasing the reactor did not  explode.” 
 NISA’s statement is significant because it is the government agency  that reports to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy within the  Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. NISA works in conjunction with  the Atomic Energy Commission. Its role is to provide oversight to the  industry and is responsible for signing off construction of new plants,  among other things. It has been criticized for approving nuclear plants  on geological fault lines and for an alleged conflict of interest in  regulating the nuclear sector. It was NISA that issued the order for the  opening of the valve to release pressure ”” and thus allegedly some  radiation ”” from the Fukushima power plant. 
 NISA has also overseen the entire government response to the nuclear  reactor problems following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. It is  difficult to determine at this point whether the NISA statement is  accurate, as the Nikkei report has not been corroborated by others. It  is also not clear from the context whether NISA is stating the  conclusions of an official assessment or simply making a statement.  However, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the  Fukushima nuclear plant, also said that although it had relieved  pressure, nevertheless some nuclear fuel had melted and further action  was necessary to contain the pressure. 
 If this report is accurate, it would not be the first time statements  by NISA and Edano have diverged. When Edano earlier claimed that  radiation levels had fallen at the site after the depressurization  efforts, NISA claimed they had risen due to the release of radioactive  vapors.

Read more:  Japanese Government Confirms Meltdown | STRATFOR 
​


----------



## Agentm (13 March 2011)

just be aware that the number 3 reactor, has mox in it

its nasty stuff, real real nasty..

mox contains this:

*Mixed oxide*, or *MOX fuel*, is nuclear fuel containing more than one oxide of fissile or fertile materials. Specifically, it usually refers to a blend of oxides of plutonium and natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium which behaves similarly (though not identically) to the low-enriched uranium oxide fuel for which most nuclear reactors were designed. MOX fuel is an alternative to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors that predominate nuclear power generation.
 One attraction of MOX fuel is that it is a way of disposing of surplus weapons-grade plutonium, which otherwise would have to be disposed as nuclear waste, and would remain a nuclear proliferation risk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#cite_note-0 However, there have been fears that normalising the global commercial use of MOX fuel and the associated expansion of reprocessing will itself lead to greater proliferation risk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#cite_note-2




in light of that. should the reactor do what is feared, the situation for northern japan in its entirely is dire..  as well as many countries near by..

imho your have to consider that the bigger players on this planet are thinking, in terms of bigger picture and a possibility of evacuations not seen in history before..

reading between the lines, the denial of meltdowns, and the reluctance to be accurate in  terms of radiation levels.. its entirely possible that what may happen next is maybe more on the side of probable than just an outside possibility.. there is no reason logic to keeping the populace in the dark imho..

just putting a 20k evacuation zone on a mox meltdown may be far too small a zone

if it was me, and i had a place to go.. a good 500 hundred clicks anywhere south would be plan A... and there is no other plan than plan A..


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> the nuclear disaster is only in its infancy, there are many combined reactors all at various stages of extreme.. with no site power still for fukushima daiichi, the first 3 units are at critical levels, with one already experiencing an explosion.  the death toll and injuries, physical and radiation from the explosions are increasing




Thankyou for the informative post Agentm

This is a scary situation. I hope this catastrophe will not get progressively worse.
If it does it could have far reaching consequences for the world.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/dieda/socio/chernobyl.htm

*Effects of the Chernobyl Disaster on SÃ¡mi Life*

By Melanie Blackwell
December 2, 2003

The night of April 26, 1986 scarred the way of life for the SÃ¡mi living in Sweden and Norway. The event would alter life especially for the SÃ¡mi reindeer herder, both economically and culturally. When one of four nuclear reactors at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine exploded, its effects were felt in countries thousands of kilometers away. For the SÃ¡mi of Scandinavia, the result was contaminated food supplies, cultural and economic losses and health risks, striking a blow at an already embattled society.

The Chernobyl nuclear reactor was built to produce nuclear power. In 1986, an experiment was conducted to test the reactor’s functionality in a power outage, to see whether it could produce electricity from residual energy after shutting off the steam supply. With the steam supply stifled, the operators proceeded manually with the system at low power, assuming incorrectly that it would remain at low power and would not come to a halt. They closed the emergency regulation valve and began the experiment. What the operators did not realize was that the steam pressure rose gradually and the cooling water nearly came to a boil, all the while increasing the power. The power increased from a doubling time under one second, working its way up to a one-millisecond doubling time (www.bellona.no). A belated attempt was made to activate the emergency regulation system, but the water exploded into steam. The experiment resulted in an explosion of the reactor and a radioactive fire that burned uncontrollably for days until extinguished by some 5 million kilograms of stone and lead, dropped by helicopter. Radioactive elements were carried 1000 meters up into the atmosphere and spread over Western Europe and Russia.

Chernobyl Nuclear Plant

Fallout from the Chernobyl explosion included radioactive cesium, strontium, plutonium and iodine. Of particular consequence to the SÃ¡mi was the large amount of the cesium 137 isotope released, which has a half-life of 30 years, meaning it loses half its radioactivity through decay every 30 years. Cesium 137 was carried by wind and spring rain patterns in high concentrations to central Sweden and Norway while the north received lower levels, and Finland and areas of southern and western Scandinavia were spared. Within days, Swedish and Norwegian scientists measured dangerous levels of cesium in the atmosphere.

Cesium 137 intruded into SÃ¡mi life foremost by contaminating their food supplies.


----------



## Calliope (13 March 2011)

The scaremongering greenies are having a ball.  Any country which has our unlimited supplies of cheap fossil fuels does not have to resort to nuclear power. It is very easy for us sitting on a coal mine and free of earthquakes, to sit in judgment of nuclear policies of countries like Japan. Japan needs our help, not denigration.

Japan of all countries knows the dangers of  uncontrolled nuclear fission. They built nuclear power stations after careful consideration.

And of course Brown thinks we have to share the blame because we export uranium to Japan.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> And of course Brown thinks we have to share the blame because we export uranium to Japan.



 Brown reminds me of a University drop-out. His wandering, vacuous eyes give it away.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> And of course Brown thinks we have to share the blame because we export uranium to Japan.




Brown didn't say that; it was someone from the ACF. Bit of truth please.

It doesn't really relate to building a nucleur power station in Australia as we are very geologically safe.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> The scaremongering greenies are having a ball.  Any country which has our unlimited supplies of cheap fossil fuels does not have to resort to nuclear power. It is very easy for us sitting on a coal mine and free of earthquakes, to sit in judgment of nuclear policies of countries like Japan. Japan needs our help, not denigration.



Totally agreed.

I would regard myself as strongly anti-nuclear in the context of places like Tasmania or New Zealand because they simply don't need it. Nobody in their right mind would choose a reactor over hydro, wind, geothermal etc. At the very least, a nuclear power plant comes with all sorts of security and other risks that these places just aren't equipped to deal with. 

I am moderately against it for mainland Australia unless (1) CO2 is proven to be a problem and (2) both hot dry rocks and underground coal gasification are proven to be duds. Given the present state of research into the latter, it seems to be a goer thus removing any need for nuclear power in Australia even if CO2 turns out to be a major problem. 

But for the likes of Japan, they don't exactly have a lot of options...


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> It doesn't really relate to building a nucleur power station in Australia as we are very geologically safe.



Earthquakes are, of course, not the only means by which a nuclear accident can occur.


----------



## Julia (13 March 2011)

So there will be a widespread panic and scaremongering about nuclear power.
Given the considerable use of nuclear in Europe, e.g. France is about 70% dependent on nuclear power, are they all going to shut down these plants?

The Greens must be thanking whomever their gods are for this amazing opportunity to rubbish anything nuclear.


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2011)

I commented about the anti-nuclear brigade in the Gillard Government thread in an attempt to keep politics out of this one. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20515&p=618544&viewfull=1#post618544


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> Thankyou for the informative post Agentm
> 
> This is a scary situation. I hope this catastrophe will not get progressively worse.
> If it does it could have far reaching consequences for the world.
> ...




Here's a great link to google books 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sami radiation&f=false

*
Children and the politics of culture *
By Sharon Stephens

Here's an excerpt chapter 11 
*The Cultural Fallout of Chernobyl Radiation in Norwegian Sami Religions:
Implications for Children*


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2011)

*10% chance of radiation hitting Taiwan: AEC*

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2011/03/13/294458/10-chance.htm

The chances of radioactive fallout from two Japanese nuclear power plants crippled by Friday's massive earthquake are not high, the Cabinet-level Atomic Energy Council said yesterday in a statement.

If two plants in Japan's Fukushima prefecture release large amounts of radiation, the probability of it reaching Taiwan is only 10 percent, the council predicted.


----------



## Calliope (13 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Brown didn't say that; it was someone from the ACF. Bit of truth please.




The truth is I didn't say Brown said that. I said  "Brown thinks we have to share the blame because we export uranium to Japan".  I doubt if there are any Greens who don't share this view. What is your angle?


----------



## adobee (14 March 2011)

Great posts Agent M ..

In my opinion this is very bad situation..
I am out of all uranium stocks and into potash..


----------



## DB008 (14 March 2011)

Would a 'thorium' powered reactor not have the current difficulties that Japan is experiencing now?


----------



## Sean K (14 March 2011)

Understandably uranium stocks pounded. Short term knee jerk imo. Pending how bad the fall out actually is... Do coal stocks crash every time there's a coal mine accident? Did gold crash when the Beaconsfield mine collapsed? Hmm, maybe a bit different situations. The nuclear fallout can cause quite a bit more damage can't it.

Looks like deaths are going to go into the 10s of thousands.

That family complaining the Aust Govt isn't doing enough about their missing family member is a bit tough. What else could we do?


----------



## spooly74 (14 March 2011)

kennas said:


> Understandably uranium stocks pounded. Short term knee jerk imo. Pending how bad the fall out actually is... Do coal stocks crash every time there's a coal mine accident? Did gold crash when the Beaconsfield mine collapsed? Hmm, maybe a bit different situations. The nuclear fallout can cause quite a bit more damage can't it.



I'd imagine they'll bounce back.
The coverage the situation at the plant is recieving is ridiculous.
Youl'd think another Chernoble was on the cards, when it's an impossibility.

No disaster here apart from that other one.



> Looks like deaths are going to go into the 10s of thousands.




Yeah, that one.


----------



## basilio (15 March 2011)

> I'd imagine they'll bounce back.
> The coverage the situation at the plant is recieving is ridiculous.
> Youl'd think another Chernoble was on the cards, when it's an impossibility.
> 
> No disaster here apart from that other one.



 Spooly 74

I think the situation with the disintegrating nuclear power plants is far more dangerous than perhaps some members might realise.  The Guardian offers quite a detailed insight into what is a rapidly deteriorating situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/japan-nuclear-fukushima-third-reactor

On an ongoing basis the effect of the loss of so much generating capacity on the Japanese economy looks bleak.  There is talk of ongoing rolling power cuts. Not sure how this would affect many industrial and commercial operations. How do you keep a manufacturing plant going when power is cut for 2-3 hours ? What about offices  and high rise buildings?. It's one thing to have  rolling power cuts in struggling third world economies which often don't/can't have sophisticated  manufacturing/commercial activities. That is not Japan.

And what about the Toyoko Electric and Power company?  As far as I can see it is a dead man walking. I just cannot see how it can economically recover from this catastrophe. So which pension funds etc are going to take the massive loss? And how long can they continue to operate and in particular  attempt to secure the power stations with drastically reduced power sales income  and no future prospects? What will the financial fallout look like ? And at what stage will the company management cut their losses and walk away ?  

Unfortunately this incident is highlighting what has always been the  Achilles heel of nuclear power. While in theory the risk of a break down might be small the consequences will be  absolutely catastrophic. We can be talking about  poisoning thousand of square Klms for many hundreds of years  That is a lot worse than simply the localised problems of a coal mine accident or a breakdown in a conventional power station. I think there is very good reason to reassess the rewards and risks of nuclear power.

And there is also one final point quite devastating point.  If one of the reactors  finally bursts in Japan it will inevitably trigger off the other reactors on the same site. Bit like one explosion in a munitions factory.

___________________________________________________________________________

Finally.  If the Japanese economy does start to fail under the pressure of  a disintegrating power supply,  uncontrollable breakdowns in nuclear power stations and the consequences of the earthquake /tsunami what will be the effects on the rest of the world economy ?


----------



## Agentm (15 March 2011)

the japanese have decided its best to not display any radiation figures in the near vicinity, so everything is "under survey" ,, meaning its now  censored!!

in light of the fact the number 2 reactor has just had an explosion inside the plant and its pressure dropped in the reactor itself, its evident the number 2 reactor has breached
radioactive material is now leaving the reactor and into the surrounding environment. it can be released into the ocean or can go into the atmosphere in the form of steam..


information is a repost from another forum













As a reference, based on background radiation measurements in the lower atmosphere at  different altitudes above sea level up to 1100 m and over the land were  made at a temperate latitude (40 °) in the Thessaloniki region, North  Greece, before and after the Chernobyl accident (26 April 1986), using a  portable _γ_-ray scintillation detector and a Cutie-pie survey  meter with an ionization chamber, *the average value of the total  background radiation at ground level was 87 nGy h-1* (10.0 μR h-1, 25 cps), i.e. 60% from terrestrial radiation, *55 nGy h-1 *(6.3 μR h-1, 15 cps) and *40% from cosmic radiation, 32 nGy h-1 *(3.7 μR h-1,  10 cps), before the Chernobyl accident, *while, after it, the total  background radiation was doubled,* due to the long-lived radioactive  fallout suspended in the atmosphere and or deposited onto the ground.


----------



## basilio (15 March 2011)

The Age has  an excellent article which explains  the ongoing nature of the problem with the disintegrating nuclear power plants.

Just for a start it seems like the 200,000 people who had to evacuate from their homes won't be getting back for months if they have to keep venting radioactive steam.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/a-growing-nuclear-dread-20110314-1bueo.html


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Spooly 74
> 
> I think the situation with the disintegrating nuclear power plants is far more dangerous than perhaps some members might realise.  The Guardian offers quite a detailed insight into what is a rapidly deteriorating situation.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/japan-nuclear-fukushima-third-reactor



That's hardly a detailed insight.



> On an ongoing basis the effect of the loss of so much generating capacity on the Japanese economy looks bleak.




Agreed, maintaining power supply will be a big challenge.



basilio]And there is also one final point quite devastating point.  If one of the reactors  finally bursts in Japan it will inevitably trigger off the other reactors on the same site. Bit like one explosion in a munitions factory.:([/quote]

How will it inevitably trigger other reactors said:


> the japanese have decided its best to not display any radiation figures in the near vicinity, so everything is "under survey" ,, meaning its now  censored!!



Could just mean it's as described, Under Survey.
Below are some censored results.



> *Contamination checks on evacuated residents*
> 13 March 2011
> Potential contamination of the public is being studied by Japanese authorities as over170,000 residents are evacuated from within 20 kilometres of Fukushima Daini and Daiichi nuclear power plants. Nine people's results have shown some degree of contamination.
> .
> ...




18,000cpm is 300Bq which is equivalent to a fraction of our bodies naturally occuring radioactive material.




basilio said:


> The Age has  an excellent article which explains  the ongoing nature of the problem with the disintegrating nuclear power plants.
> 
> Just for a start it seems like the 200,000 people who had to evacuate from their homes won't be getting back for months if they have to keep venting radioactive steam.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/environment/a-growing-nuclear-dread-20110314-1bueo.html




From the Age article


> But US officials at the Pentagon said that helicopters flying near the plant on Sunday picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates - still being analysed, but presumed to include caesium-137 and iodine-121 - *suggesting widening environmental contamination*.




More on this


> The 17 were on 3 helicopters from the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, flying in rescue operations outside Sendai City.
> 
> According to the 7th Fleet, low levels of contamination were detected on the crewmembers. It says the *radioactivity was easily removed from affected personnel by washing with soap and water*, and no further contamination has been detected.
> 
> http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/14_37.html


----------



## basilio (15 March 2011)

Spooly my comments were made with regard to the unfolding nature of the breakdown of the nuclear reactors. Unfortunately this is now happening with confirmation that there has been a breach of at least one of the reactors containment vessels and a fire in another reactor.

In that sense there would be no comparison between the relatively limited escape of radioactivity in the last 24-48 hours and the amounts that could be vented in the near future.


> Quote Originally Posted by basilio
> And there is also one final point quite devastating point. If one of the reactors finally bursts in Japan it will inevitably trigger off the other reactors on the same site. Bit like one explosion in a munitions factory.
> 
> 
> *How will it inevitably trigger other reactors, where did you heat that? Spooly*




I would have thought that simply logic would take anyone to the same conclusion.  A catastrophic collapse of one reactor would almost certainly cause such damage in the immediate area it would have to compromise the other units. And remember every unit is currently unable to cool itself with the  nuclear cores getting  hotter and hotter.


----------



## Agentm (15 March 2011)

spooly74

you sound like your sceptical.. 

the whole place is going up in flames, and is being raised to the ground.. there is nothing that can be done,,

radioactive material is now spewing into the air

the disaster can lead to many many deaths from radiation poisoning

the situation is as bad as one could make it.. 3 reactors are basically critical, one burning, and one is full of MOX.. plutonium is in the fuel rods..

this is 100% a catastrophic emergency and disaster..


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Spooly my comments were made with regard to the unfolding nature of the breakdown of the nuclear reactors. Unfortunately this is now happening with confirmation that there has been a breach of at least one of the reactors containment vessels and a fire in another reactor.
> 
> In that sense there would be no comparison between the relatively limited escape of radioactivity in the last 24-48 hours and the amounts that could be vented in the near future.



As you say, this is unfolding. We don't know what could happen yet.
The situation could get worse. High levels (8 times background radiation) were reported at the gates of a plant, but dropped minutes later, indicating some form of breach.
I'm not trying to play this down, just put it in perspective atm.

Some good news: All Fukushima No.2 plant reactors safely halted




> I would have thought that simply logic would take anyone to the same conclusion.  A catastrophic collapse of one reactor would almost certainly cause such damage in the immediate area it would have to compromise the other units. And remember every unit is currently unable to cool itself with the  nuclear cores getting  hotter and hotter.




That's not a realistic scenario. These aren't Russian reactors, or bombs.


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> spooly74
> 
> this is 100% a catastrophic emergency and disaster..




Latest I heard is it was still a level 4 on the INES scale.
Might have changed?
The scale is logarithmic.



> Level 4: Accident with local consequencesImpact on People and the Environment
> Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls.
> At least one death from radiation.
> Impact on Radiological Barriers and Control
> Fuel melt or damage to fuel *resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory?Release of significant quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high *probability of significant public exposure.


----------



## DB008 (15 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> The Japanese have decided its best to not display any radiation figures in the near vicinity, so everything is "under survey", meaning its now censored!!




That really means, "Get the _F*** Out_ of there if you haven't already. You'll glow the dark soon."


----------



## IFocus (15 March 2011)

It will be really heavy with the explosions they would have lost most of their instrumentation and with that the means of any sort of remote control over the process measurements, control valves etc.

It will inhibit them seeing WTF is really happening which is one possible reason for the lack of information on the status of the reactors simply because they wont know.

Also the warnings sound like to me that a deteriorating situation is expected.


----------



## DB008 (15 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> It will be really heavy with the explosions they would have lost most of their instrumentation and with that the means of any sort of remote control over the process measurements, control valves etc.
> 
> It will inhibit them seeing WTF is really happening which is one possible reason for the lack of information on the status of the reactors simply because they wont know.
> 
> Also the warnings sound like to me that a deteriorating situation is expected.




Yep.

I just saw an interview on the ABC with a English physics professor (who is on the board of the English Nuclear Oversight Committee) that said all of these Nuclear Power stations have back-up control rooms for these types of situations. However, if most of the instruments were blown off with these 2 explosions, it won't help much.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Unfortunately this incident is highlighting what has always been the  Achilles heel of nuclear power. While in theory the risk of a break down might be small the consequences will be  absolutely catastrophic. We can be talking about  poisoning thousand of square Klms for many hundreds of years  That is a lot worse than simply the localised problems of a coal mine accident or a breakdown in a conventional power station. I think there is very good reason to reassess the rewards and risks of nuclear power.



Very strongly agreed. 

Nothing that happens at a coal, oil, gas, hydro or other non-nuclear power station has this scale of impact. You won't be hearing of a 30km evacuation zone around a coal-fired plant anytime soon that's for sure.

Looking at the overall situation, I'm no expert on nuclear reactors but it seems to be a classic case of a bad situation that slowly but surely keeps getting worse. It's gone from a "safe shutdown" to "issues" to "releasing pressure" to "elevated levels of radiation but still safe" to the point where huge numbers of people now seem to be at health risk directly as a result of this plant. 

The point at which this is the non-event that nuclear supporters keep harping on about has passed. Human health and the environment is now actually at real risk.

I have never been keen on nuclear power, always regarding it as the power source to be used only where coal, gas, hydro etc isn't available. Sadly, once again we seem to be learning the hard way about the reality that nothing man does is 100% guaranteed to be safe.


----------



## Happy (15 March 2011)

True, luckily last news are that situation improves.

Possibly others will learn how to do things better.
To me (outside bystander) it looks that there were not enough levels of emergency contingencies.
Pumps failed, OK, why didn't they have 2 more pump systems, or 3, or some other non pump one?
Possibly vacuum chambers to take up compressed steam?

Possibly plant was too powerful for safe containment should things go wrong.

I know economy of scale is important and few hundred MW is better than fraction of that, but maybe more smaller plants bit wider spaced would be better?


----------



## Agentm (16 March 2011)

i guess there is concern on the latest fire in reactor number 4

also the government evoking article 15 on the various divisions and instrumentalities and government departments themselves.. news black out now..

this article may be of  interest..

VERY INTERESTIN?G: Japan's Nuclear Situation


 Written by Dr Josef Oehmen, research scientist at MIT:


I  am writing this text (Mar 12) to give you some peace of mind  regarding  some of the troubles in Japan , that is the safety of Japan  's nuclear  reactors. Up front, the situation is serious, but under  control. And  this text is long! But you will know more about nuclear  power plants  after reading it than all journalists on this planet put  together.
 There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.


By  "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you  would  receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of  beer  that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural  background  radiation.


I have been reading every news release on the  incident since the  earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report  that was accurate  and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a  weakness in the  Japanese crisis communication). By "not free of errors"  I do not refer  to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism - that is quite  normal these  days. By "not free of errors" I mean blatant errors  regarding physics  and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of  facts, due to an  obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of  the way nuclear  reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page  report on CNN  where every single paragraph contained an error.
 We will have to cover some fundamentals, before we get into what is going on.
 Construction of the Fukushima nuclear power plants
 The  plants at Fukushima are so called Boiling Water Reactors, or BWR  for  short. Boiling Water Reactors are similar to a pressure cooker.  The  nuclear fuel heats water, the water boils and creates steam, the  steam  then drives turbines that create the electricity, and the steam  is then  cooled and condensed back to water, and the water send back to  be heated  by the nuclear fuel. The pressure cooker operates at about  250 ?C.


The  nuclear fuel is uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is a ceramic with a  very  high melting point of about 3000 ?C. The fuel is manufactured in  pellets  (think little cylinders the size of Lego bricks). Those pieces  are then  put into a long tube made of Zircaloy with a melting point of  2200 ?C,  and sealed tight. The assembly is called a fuel rod. These  fuel rods are  then put together to form larger packages, and a number  of these  packages are then put into the reactor. All these packages  together are  referred to as "the core".
 The Zircaloy casing is the first containment. It separates the radioactive fuel from the rest of the world.


The  core is then placed in the "pressure vessels". That is the  pressure  cooker we talked about before. The pressure vessels is the  second  containment. This is one sturdy piece of a pot, designed to  safely  contain the core for temperatures several hundred ?C. That  covers the  scenarios where cooling can be restored at some point.
 The  entire "hardware" of the nuclear reactor - the pressure vessel  and all  pipes, pumps, coolant (water) reserves, are then encased in the  third  containment. The third containment is a hermetically (air tight)  sealed,  very thick bubble of the strongest steel and concrete. The  third  containment is designed, built and tested for one single purpose:  To  contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown. For that purpose, a   large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the   second containment), all inside the third containment. This is the   so-called "core catcher". If the core melts and the pressure vessel   bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and   everything else. It is typically built in such a way that the nuclear   fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.


This third  containment is then surrounded by the reactor building.  The reactor  building is an outer shell that is supposed to keep the  weather out, but  nothing in. (this is the part that was damaged in the  explosion, but  more to that later).
 Fundamentals of nuclear reactions
 The  uranium fuel generates heat by nuclear fission. Big uranium  atoms are  split into smaller atoms. That generates heat plus neutrons  (one of the  particles that forms an atom). When the neutron hits  another uranium  atom, that splits, generating more neutrons and so on.  That is called  the nuclear chain reaction.
 Now, just packing a lot of fuel rods  next to each other would  quickly lead to overheating and after about 45  minutes to a melting of  the fuel rods. It is worth mentioning at this  point that the nuclear  fuel in a reactor can *never* cause a nuclear  explosion the type of a  nuclear bomb. Building a nuclear bomb is  actually quite difficult (ask  Iran ). In Chernobyl , the explosion was  caused by excessive pressure  buildup, hydrogen explosion and rupture of  all containments, propelling  molten core material into the environment  (a "dirty bomb"). Why that  did not and will not happen in Japan ,  further below.


In order to control the nuclear chain reaction,  the reactor  operators use so-called "control rods". The control rods  absorb the  neutrons and kill the chain reaction instantaneously. A  nuclear reactor  is built in such a way, that when operating normally,  you take out all  the control rods. The coolant water then takes away the  heat (and  converts it into steam and electricity) at the same rate as  the core  produces it. And you have a lot of leeway around the standard  operating  point of 250?C.
 The challenge is that after inserting  the rods and stopping the  chain reaction, the core still keeps producing  heat. The uranium  "stopped" the chain reaction. But a number of  intermediate radioactive  elements are created by the uranium during its  fission process, most  notably Cesium and Iodine isotopes, i.e.  radioactive versions of these  elements that will eventually split up  into smaller atoms and not be  radioactive anymore. Those elements keep  decaying and producing heat.  Because they are not regenerated any longer  from the uranium (the  uranium stopped decaying after the control rods  were put in), they get  less and less, and so the core cools down over a  matter of days, until  those intermediate radioactive elements are used  up.


This residual heat is causing the headaches right now.


So  the first "type" of radioactive material is the uranium in the  fuel  rods, plus the intermediate radioactive elements that the uranium  splits  into, also inside the fuel rod (Cesium and Iodine).


There is a  second type of radioactive material created, outside the  fuel rods. The  big main difference up front: Those radioactive  materials have a very  short half-life, that means that they decay very  fast and split into  non-radioactive materials. By fast I mean seconds.  So if these  radioactive materials are released into the environment,  yes,  radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all.  Why? By  the time you spelled "R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E", they will be  harmless,  because they will have split up into non radioactive  elements. Those  radioactive elements are N-16, the radioactive isotope  (or version) of  nitrogen (air). The others are noble gases such as  Argon. But where do  they come from? When the uranium splits, it  generates a neutron (see  above). Most of these neutrons will hit other  uranium atoms and keep the  nuclear chain reaction going. But some will  leave the fuel rod and hit  the water molecules, or the air that is in  the water. Then, a  non-radioactive element can "capture" the neutron.  It becomes  radioactive. As described above, it will quickly (seconds)  get rid again  of the neutron to return to its former beautiful self.


This  second "type" of radiation is very important when we talk about  the  radioactivity being released into the environment later on.


What happened at Fukushima


I  will try to summarize the main facts. The earthquake that hit  Japan was  5 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear  power plant  was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; the  difference  between the 8.2 that the plants were built for and the 8.9  that happened  is 5 times, not 0.7). So the first hooray for Japanese  engineering,  everything held up.


When the earthquake hit with 8.9, the  nuclear reactors all went into  automatic shutdown. Within seconds after  the earthquake started, the  control rods had been inserted into the core  and nuclear chain reaction  of the uranium stopped. Now, the cooling  system has to carry away the  residual heat. The residual heat load is  about 3% of the heat load  under normal operating conditions.
 The  earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear  reactor.  That is one of the most serious accidents for a nuclear power  plant, and  accordingly, a "plant black out" receives a lot of attention  when  designing backup systems. The power is needed to keep the coolant  pumps  working. Since the power plant had been shut down, it cannot  produce any  electricity by itself any more.


http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-power-stations-in-japan/


----------



## Agentm (16 March 2011)

Things were going well for an  hour. One set of multiple sets of   emergency Diesel power generators  kicked in and provided the   electricity that was needed. Then the Tsunami  came, much bigger than   people had expected when building the power  plant (see above, factor   7). The tsunami took out all multiple sets of  backup Diesel generators.


When designing a nuclear power plant,  engineers follow a philosophy   called "Defense of Depth". That means that  you first build everything   to withstand the worst catastrophe you can  imagine, and then design the   plant in such a way that it can still  handle one system failure (that   you thought could never happen) after  the other. A tsunami taking out   all backup power in one swift strike is  such a scenario. The last  line  of defense is putting everything into the  third containment (see   above), that will keep everything, whatever the  mess, control rods in   our out, core molten or not, inside the reactor.
 When  the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched   to  emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the    backups to the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8    hours. And they did.


Within the 8 hours, another power source  had to be found and  connected  to the power plant. The power grid was  down due to the  earthquake.  The diesel generators were destroyed by the  tsunami. So  mobile diesel  generators were trucked in.


This is  where things started to go seriously wrong. The external  power   generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs  did  not  fit). So after the batteries ran out, the residual heat could  not  be  carried away any more.


At this point the plant operators begin  to follow emergency  procedures  that are in place for a "loss of cooling  event". It is again  a step  along the "Depth of Defense" lines. The power  to the cooling  systems  should never have failed completely, but it did,  so they  "retreat" to  the next line of defense. All of this, however  shocking it  seems to  us, is part of the day-to-day training you go  through as an  operator,  right through to managing a core meltdown.
 It  was at this stage that people started to talk about core  meltdown.   Because at the end of the day, if cooling cannot be restored,  the  core  will eventually melt (after hours or days), and the last line  of   defense, the core catcher and third containment, would come into  play.
 But  the goal at this stage was to manage the core while it was   heating up,  and ensure that the first containment (the Zircaloy tubes   that contains  the nuclear fuel), as well as the second containment (our   pressure  cooker) remain intact and operational for as long as   possible, to give  the engineers time to fix the cooling systems.


Because cooling  the core is such a big deal, the reactor has a  number  of cooling  systems, each in multiple versions (the reactor water   cleanup system,  the decay heat removal, the reactor core isolating   cooling, the standby  liquid cooling system, and the emergency core   cooling system). Which one  failed when or did not fail is not clear at   this point in time.


So  imagine our pressure cooker on the stove, heat on low, but on.  The   operators use whatever cooling system capacity they have to get rid  of   as much heat as possible, but the pressure starts building up. The    priority now is to maintain integrity of the first containment (keep    temperature of the fuel rods below 2200?C), as well as the second    containment, the pressure cooker.  In order to maintain integrity of the    pressure cooker (the second containment), the pressure has to be    released from time to time. Because the ability to do that in an    emergency is so important, the reactor has 11 pressure release valves.    The operators now started venting steam from time to time to control  the   pressure. The temperature at this stage was about 550?C.
 This  is when the reports about "radiation leakage" starting coming   in. I  believe I explained above why venting the steam is theoretically   the  same as releasing radiation into the environment, but why it was   and is  not dangerous. The radioactive nitrogen as well as the noble   gases do  not pose a threat to human health.


At some stage during this  venting, the explosion occurred. The   explosion took place outside of the  third containment (our "last line   of defense"), and the reactor  building. Remember that the reactor   building has no function in keeping  the radioactivity contained. It is   not entirely clear yet what has  happened, but this is the likely   scenario: The operators decided to vent  the steam from the pressure   vessel not directly into the environment,  but into the space between   the third containment and the reactor  building (to give the   radioactivity in the steam more time to subside).  The problem is that   at the high temperatures that the core had reached  at this stage, water   molecules can "disassociate" into oxygen and  hydrogen - an explosive   mixture. And it did explode, outside the third  containment, damaging   the reactor building around. It was that sort of  explosion, but inside   the pressure vessel (because it was badly designed  and not managed   properly by the operators) that lead to the explosion  of Chernobyl .   This was never a risk at Fukushima . The problem of  hydrogen-oxygen   formation is one of the biggies when you design a power  plant (if you   are not Soviet, that is), so the reactor is build and  operated in a way   it cannot happen inside the containment. It happened  outside, which   was not intended but a possible scenario and OK, because  it did not   pose a risk for the containment.


So the pressure was  under control, as steam was vented. Now, if you   keep boiling your pot,  the problem is that the water level will keep   falling and falling. The  core is covered by several meters of water in   order to allow for some  time to pass (hours, days) before it gets   exposed. Once the rods start  to be exposed at the top, the exposed   parts will reach the critical  temperature of 2200 ?C after about 45   minutes. This is when the first  containment, the Zircaloy tube, would   fail.


And this started to  happen. The cooling could not be restored before   there was some (very  limited, but still) damage to the casing of some   of the fuel. The  nuclear material itself was still intact, but the   surrounding Zircaloy  shell had started melting. What happened now is   that some of the  byproducts of the uranium decay - radioactive Cesium   and Iodine -  started to mix with the steam. The big problem, uranium,   was still under  control, because the uranium oxide rods were good until   3000 ?C. It is  confirmed that a very small amount of Cesium and  Iodine  was measured in  the steam that was released into the  atmosphere.


It seems this  was the "go signal" for a major plan B. The small   amounts of Cesium that  were measured told the operators that the first   containment on one of  the rods somewhere was about to give. The Plan A   had been to restore one  of the regular cooling systems to the core.  Why  that failed is unclear.  One plausible explanation is that the  tsunami  also took away / polluted  all the clean water needed for the  regular  cooling systems.


The  water used in the cooling system is very clean, demineralized   (like  distilled) water. The reason to use pure water is the above   mentioned  activation by the neutrons from the Uranium: Pure water does   not get  activated much, so stays practically radioactive-free. Dirt or   salt in  the water will absorb the neutrons quicker, becoming more   radioactive.  This has no effect whatsoever on the core - it does not   care what it is  cooled by. But it makes life more difficult for the   operators and  mechanics when they have to deal with activated (i.e.   slightly  radioactive) water.


http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-power-stations-in-japan/


----------



## Agentm (16 March 2011)

But Plan A had failed - cooling systems down  or additional clean  water unavailable - so 



Plan B came into effect.  This is what it looks  like happened:
 In order to prevent a core  meltdown, the operators started to use  sea   water to cool the core. I am  not quite sure if they flooded our    pressure cooker with it (the second  containment), or if they flooded    the third containment, immersing the  pressure cooker. But that is not    relevant for us.


The point is  that the nuclear fuel has now been cooled down. Because    the chain  reaction has been stopped a long time ago, there is only    very little  residual heat being produced now. The large amount of    cooling water that  has been used is sufficient to take up that heat.    Because it is a lot  of water, the core does not produce sufficient heat    any more to produce  any significant pressure. Also, boric acid has    been added to the  seawater. Boric acid is "liquid control rod".    Whatever decay is still  going on, the Boron will capture the neutrons    and further speed up the  cooling down of the core.


The plant came close to a core  meltdown. Here is the worst-case    scenario that was avoided: If the  seawater could not have been used for    treatment, the operators would  have continued to vent the water  steam   to avoid pressure buildup. The  third containment would then  have been   completely sealed to allow the  core meltdown to happen  without   releasing radioactive material. After  the meltdown, there  would have   been a waiting period for the  intermediate radioactive  materials to   decay inside the reactor, and all  radioactive particles  to settle on a   surface inside the containment. The  cooling system  would have been   restored eventually, and the molten core  cooled to a  manageable   temperature. The containment would have been  cleaned up on  the inside.   Then a messy job of removing the molten core  from the  containment  would  have begun, packing the (now solid again)  fuel bit  by bit into   transportation containers to be shipped to  processing  plants. Depending   on the damage, the block of the plant would  then  either be repaired  or  dismantled.


Now, where does that leave us?


The plant is safe now and will stay safe.



Japan  is looking at an  INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with   local  consequences. That  is bad for the company that owns the plant,   but not  for anyone else.
Some  radiation was released when the pressure vessel  was vented. All    radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone  (decayed). A    very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as  Iodine. If you    were sitting on top of the plants' chimney when they were  venting, you    should probably give up smoking to return to your former  life    expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the  sea    and will never be seen again.



There was some limited damage to  the  first containment. That means   that some amounts of radioactive  Cesium  and Iodine will also be   released into the cooling water, but no  Uranium  or other nasty stuff   (the Uranium oxide does not "dissolve" in  the  water). There are   facilities for treating the cooling water inside  the  third   containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed   there   and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.



The   seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree.     Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain  reaction    is not happening. That means the "main" nuclear reaction is  not    happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The  intermediate    radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also  almost gone at this    stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a  long time ago. This    further reduces the activation. The bottom line  is that there will be    some low level of activation of the seawater,  which will also be removed    by the treatment facilities.



The seawater will then be replaced  over  time with the "normal" cooling   water The reactor core will then be   dismantled and transported to a   processing facility, just like during a   regular fuel change.



Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.



The   safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to   withstand a   9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse) I believe the most   significant   problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of   Japan 's   nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected,  reducing  the   nation's power generating capacity by 15%. This will  probably be  covered   by running gas power plants that are usually only  used for  peak loads   to cover some of the base load as well. That  will increase  your   electricity bill, as well as lead to potential  power shortages  during   peak demand, in Japan .



If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reac...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-power-stat...


----------



## basilio (16 March 2011)

Thank you for the information Agentum.  Very interesting and I hope a realistic portrayal of what is happening.

I have to say however this situation will only subside when there is clear evidence that the reactor cores are cooling and that there is no significant escape of radioactive material. Let's pray..


----------



## spooly74 (16 March 2011)

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news/2011/110315fukushima_event-status-5.pdf


----------



## skc (16 March 2011)

Live webcam feed into the Fukushima nuclear power plant control room.




Sorry just my attempt at some dark humour...everything is just so sad.


----------



## Julia (16 March 2011)

skc said:


> Sorry just my attempt at some dark humour...everything is just so sad.




I know what you mean.  I look at the horror of it all and just have to walk away, feeling like a total coward.


----------



## Mofra (16 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Thank you for the information Agentum.  Very interesting and I hope a realistic portrayal of what is happening.



Ditto - obviously hysteria sells newspapers, but it's good to have a realistic handle on the situation.


----------



## basilio (16 March 2011)

Controlling the meltdown in the nuclear reactor is not going according to Hoyle. Last statement in the media was that the power company is withdrawing  the last 50 workers because the radiation levels are too high. They are now appealing to the US military for help.

Back in the USSR and Chernobyl  I understand a number of employees continued to work to somehow secure the plant even as they were getting deadly amounts of radiation. Tragic but true - and totally heroic..



> *Work on stricken Japan reactor suspended*
> March 16, 2011 - 4:14PM
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/world/work-on-stricken-japan-reactor-suspended-20110316-1bx0p.html


----------



## IFocus (16 March 2011)

Thank you for the information Agentum, what I don't get is the genset plugs did not fit. 

You would simply hard wire them temporary not a big deal must be more to the story.


----------



## IFocus (16 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Controlling the meltdown in the nuclear reactor is not going according to Hoyle. Last statement in the media was that the power company is withdrawing  the last 50 workers because the radiation levels are too high. They are now appealing to the US military for help.
> 
> Back in the USSR and Chernobyl  I understand a number of employees continued to work to somehow secure the plant even as they were getting deadly amounts of radiation. Tragic but true - and totally heroic..
> 
> ...




Current group of worker would have had potential deadly doses already.


----------



## skc (16 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Thank you for the information Agentum, what I don't get is the genset plugs did not fit.
> 
> You would simply hard wire them temporary not a big deal must be more to the story.




Exactly my thoughts... sure may be it is acceptable that my camera charger's plug didn't fit the socket at the hotel on my last overseas holiday.

It's a nuclear power plant ffs.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (17 March 2011)

But wait, there's more.  

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/he...nits-4-5-and-6-total-4-units-have-core-damage

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/usdjpy-plunging-drops-16-year-low


----------



## Agentm (17 March 2011)

the levels are not over the top imho, they basically require people to stay indoors

of course the alarm in peoples minds and the concern is that high levels of radiation could potentially occur if things go wrong from here



*Fukushima Nuclear Accident – 16 March update*

                   Posted on 16 March 2011 by Barry Brook                


This  is an update of the situation as of 10 am JST Wednesday 16 March. (For  background on events of 15 March and earlier, start with this post and its included links.) Note that this is a blog, not a news website, and thus the following analysis, like all others on _BraveNewClimate_, is a mixture of news and opinion ”” but *facts *remain paramount.
 First, the situation is clearly (but slowly) stabilising. As each day  passes, the amount of thermal heat (caused by radioactive decay of the  fission products) that remains in the reactor fuel assemblies decreases  exponentially. When the reactors SCRAMed on 11 March after the  earthquake, and went sub-critical, their power levels dropped by about  95 % of peak output (the nuclear fission process was no longer  self-sustaining). Over the past 5 days, the energy in the fuel rods  dropped by another ~97 %, such that the heat dissipation situation is  getting more and more manageable. But we’re not out of the woods yet,  and the reactor cores will need significant cooling for at least another  5 days before stability can be ensured.
 Yesterday there appears to have been a fracture in the wetwell torus  (see diagram: that circular structure below and to the side of the  reactor vessel) in Unit 2, caused by a hydrogen explosion, which led to a  rapid venting of highly radioactive fission product gases (mostly noble  [chemically unreactive] gases, the majority of which had a half-life of  seconds to minutes). It also caused a drop in pressure in the  supression pool, which made the cooling process more challenging.  However, despite some earlier concerns, it is now clear that containment  was not breached. Even under this situation of extreme physical duress,  the multiple containment barriers have held firm. This is an issue to  be revisited, when the dust finally settles.
 Units 1 and 3, the other two operating reactors at Fukushima Daiichi  when the earthquake struck, continue to be cooled by sea water.  Containment is secure in both units. However, like Unit 2, there is a  high probability that the fuel assemblies have likely suffered damage  due to temporary exposure (out of water), as the engineers struggled  over the last few days to maintain core coolant levels. Whether there  has been any melting of the clad or rods remains unclear, and probably  will continue to be shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty for some time  yet.




	

		
			
		

		
	
The  other ongoing serious issue is with managing the heat dissipation in  the spent fuel ponds. These contain old fuel rods from previous reactor  operation that are cooling down, on site, immersed in water, which also  provides radiation shielding. After a few years of pond cooling, these  are transferred to dry storage. The heat in these rods is _much_  less than those of the in-core assemblies, but it is still significant  enough as to cause concern for maintaining adequate coverage of the  stored fuel and to avoid boiling the unpressurised water. There have  been two fires in Unit 4, the first tentatively linked to a failed oil  pump, and the second, being of (currently) unknown cause, but the  likelihood is that it was linked to hydrogen gas bubbling.
 There appears to have been some exposure of this spent fuel, and  radiation levels around this area remain high ”” making access in order  to maintain water levels particularly troublesome. Note that apart from  short-lived fission product gases, these radiation sources are otherwise  contained within the rods and not particularised in a way that  facilitates dispersion. Again, the problems encountered here can be  linked to the critical lack of on-site power, with the mains grid still  being out of action. As a further precaution, TEPCO is considering  spraying the pool with boric acid to minimise the probability of ‘prompt  criticality’ events. This is the news item we should be watching most  closely today.
 An excellent 2-page fact sheet on the spent fuel pool issues has been produced by the NEI, which can be read here: Used Nuclear Fuel Storage at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (this includes an explanation of what might happen under various scenarios).
 This figure illustrates the current  reported state of the Daiichi and Daini reactors, last updated 1230 on  16 March (click to enlarge):




	

		
			
		

		
	
The status report from the _The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan_ (FEPC) is given below:​ *•    Radiation Levels*
 o    At 10:22AM (JST) on March 15, a  radiation level of 400 milli sievert per hour was recorded outside  secondary containment building of the Unit 3 reactor at Fukushima  Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
 o    At 3:30PM on March 15, a radiation  level of 596 micro sievert per hour was recorded at the main gate of  Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
 o    At 4:30PM on March 15, a radiation  level of 489 micro sievert per hour was recorded on the site of the  Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
 o    For comparison, a human receives 2400  micro sievert per year from natural radiation in the form of sunlight,  radon, and other sources. One chest CT scan generates 6900 micro sievert  per scan.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
 o    As of 10:00PM on March 14, the pressure  inside the reactor core was measured at 0.05 MPa. The water level  inside the reactor was measured at 1.7 meters below the top of the fuel  rods.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
 o    At 6:14AM on March 15, an explosion was  heard in the secondary containment building.  TEPCO assumes that the  suppression chamber, which holds water and stream released from the  reactor core, was damaged.
 o    At 1:00PM on March 15, the pressure  inside the reactor core was measured at 0.608 MPa. The water level  inside the reactor was measured at 1.7 meters below the top of the fuel  rods.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor*
 o    At 6:14AM on March 15, smoke was discovered emanating from the damaged secondary containment building.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor*
 o    At 9:38AM on March 15, a fire was discovered on the third floor of the secondary containment building.
 o    At 12:29PM on March 15, TEPCO confirmed extinguishing of the fire.
*•    Fukushima Daini Units 1 to 4 reactors:* all now in cold shutdown, TEPCO continues to cool each reactor core.
 This indicates a peak radiation level of 400 mSv/hr, which has come  down to about 0.5 mSv/hr by the afternoon. This ‘spot’ radiation level  was measured at a location between Unit 3 and 4. It was attributted to a  hydrogen explosion in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 ”” but this is still  under debate. The radiation level at the site boundary is expected to  have been much lower and, to date, there is no risk to the general  public.


----------



## Agentm (17 March 2011)

Two other useful sources of information are from the _WNN_: Radiation decreasing, fuel ponds warming and Second fire reported at unit 4. ANS Nuclear Cafe continues to be a great collator of key official channels and top news stories.
 Finally, this is a useful perspective from an MIT staffer that is well worth reading:
What happened at the Fukushima reactor? Events in Japan confirm the robustness of modern nuclear technology ”” not a failure
 Kirk Sorenson, from _Energy from Thorium_ blog, also has this very interesting piece: Thoughts on Fukushima-Daiichi. A concluding excerpt:What  is known is that this is a situation very different  than Chernobyl or  Three Mile Island. There was no operator error  involved at  Fukushima-Daiichi, and each reactor was successfully shut  down within  moments of detecting the quake. The situation has evolved  slowly but in  a manner that was not anticipated by designers who had not  assumed  that electrical power to run emergency pumps would be  unavailable for  days after the shutdown. They built an impressive array  of redundant  pumps and power generating equipment to preclude against  this problem.  Unfortunately, the tsunami destroyed it.
 There are some characteristics of a nuclear fission reactor that will   be common to every nuclear fission reactor. They will always have to   contend with decay heat. They will always have to produce heat at high   temperatures to generate electricity. But they do not have to use   coolant fluids like water that must operate at high pressures in order   to achieve high temperatures. Other fluids like fluoride salts can   operate at high temperatures yet at the same pressures as the outside.   Fluoride salts are impervious to radiation damage, unlike water, and   don’t evolve hydrogen gas which can lead to an explosion. Solid nuclear   fuel like that used at Fukushima-Daiichi can melt and release   radioactive materials if not cooled consistently during shutdown.   Fluoride salts can carry fuel in chemically-stable forms that can be   passively cooled without pumps driven by emergency power generation.   There are solutions to the extreme situation that was encountered at   Fukushima-Daiichi, and it may be in our best interest to pursue them.​More updates as further information comes to hand. Otherwise, for me, it’s back to the mad TV and radio media circus.
*UPDATE: *From _World Nuclear News: __*Problems for units 3 and 4*_Chief  Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano had outlined problems  that had occured  on the morning of 16 March with Fukushima Daiichi 3  and 4.
 At 8:34am local time white smoke was seen billowing out of Fukushima   Daiichi 3. Efforts to determine the cause of this development were   interrupted as all workers had evacuated to a safe area due to rising   radiation readings. Readings from a sensor near the front gate had   fluctuated for some time, although Edano said that on the whole there   was no health hazard. Earlier in the morning readings had ranged between   600-800 microsieverts per hour, but at 10am readings rose to 1000   microsieverts per hour. Readings began to fall again from around 10:54.
 Edano said that one possibility being considered was that the unit 3   reactor had suffered a similar failure to that suffered by unit 2   yesterday, although there had been no reported blast or loud sound,   which had been the case for unit 2. The immediate focus, said Edano was   on monitoring of levels and checking pumping operations.
 Edano also outlined plans for units 4-6. Preparations were being made   to inject water into unit 4, however the high levels of radiation from   unit 3 were imparing those preparations. When possible, the water   injection would be done gradually as there were safety concerns over   pouring a large amount of water at once. The water will be pumped into   the reactor building from the ground, plans to drop water from a   helicopter having been abandoned. Although he said that “all things were   possible” Edano did not believe that recriticality at unit 4 was a   realistic risk
*Second fire at unit 4*
 Earlier, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that a blaze   was spotted in the reactor building of Fukushima Daiichi 4 at 5.45am   local time this morning.
 Attempts to extinguish it were reportedly delayed due to high levels   of radiation in the area. A spokesperson for TEPCO said that by around   6:15am there were no flames to be seen.
 The incident at unit 4 is believed to be in the region of a used fuel pond in the upper portion of the reactor building.
*Origins*
 Tokyo Electric Power Company issued a notice of an explosion at unit 4   at 6am on 15 March. This was followed by the company’s confirmation of   damage around the fifth floor rooftop area of the reactor building.
 On that day, a fire was discovered but investigations concluded it had died down by around 11am.
 At present it is not clear whether today’s fire was a completely new   blaze, or if the fire reported yesterday had flared up again.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 March 2011)

Check your sources AgentM

From the Murdoch Press this mornings paper - Terry McCrann - Nuclear hysteria will fade. China syndrome can't happen , ....and Insanity. (referring to hysteria) 

From the *ABC* -  The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has warned there is no water left in the spent fuel pool of reactor No. 4 at the plant, resulting in "extremely high" radiation levels.

NRC chief Gregory Jaczko says if the US were facing a similar situation it would order a much larger evacuation zone.

The US has called on Americans within 80 kilometres of the nuclear plant area to leave.

Those who believed other sources and bought nuclear stocks yesterday will be reconsidering where they get their information. I would be getting out today, if I were them, as soon as possible. This is a horrible disaster and I feel for the Japanese.  Whole areas of the country will be left uninhabitable.  As for the nuclear workers - I pity them and their families, they should be remembered as heroes. It is not their fault that design of the plant was inadequate.


----------



## spooly74 (17 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Check your sources AgentM
> 
> From the Murdoch Press this mornings paper - Terry McCrann - Nuclear hysteria will fade. China syndrome can't happen , ....and Insanity. (referring to hysteria)
> 
> From the *ABC* -  The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has warned there is no water left in the spent fuel pool of reactor No. 4 at the plant, resulting in "extremely high" radiation levels.




Any figures with "extremely high" radiation levels?
Without them, it's a pointless statement. Dose vs distance if possible.

Also, the Japanese have denied the statement that the fuel ponds are empty.
Wait and see.



> It is not their fault that design of the plant was inadequate.



Backseat engineering with hindsight after one of the biggest quakes ever recorded and a 7m tsunami, what a luxury.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 March 2011)

spooly74 said:


> Backseat engineering with hindsight after one of the biggest quakes ever recorded and a 7m tsunami, what a luxury.




Such ignorance.

The GE reactors are widely recognised as being of poor design.

Look at this site.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 March 2011)

What if there had been a 9.5 earthquake straight under the plant? What if terrorists attacked the plant after the earthquake and tsunami? What if...

Will man never learn that we can not possibly foresee every scenario and that there is always some risk? Indeed that there is always some risk is explicitly acknowledged in the design of such things, it's just that we chose to build them anyway. No engineer designing any complex system will guarantee you 100% safety under all circumstances. It just can't be done.

At the end of the day, it's a power station. Electricity generation shouldn't be this exciting. It shouldn't be endangering so many people. With the outright fortune being spent at this plant, plus all that spent on the security etc of nuclear plants worldwide over the years, I'm sure we could have made some other power source work with that sort of resources available. 

With the costs of this nuclear disaster, a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro plus some coal and gas would probably have been cheaper anyway. And it's certainly not going to melt down and scare the **** out of everyone in the entire region.


----------



## basilio (17 March 2011)

Everyone is certainly getting up to speed with the ins and outs of nuclear reactors...

*The good news.* It seems as if everyone agrees that the difference in design and material use between the Chernobyl reactor and the Japanese ones means there can't be an explosion of the intensity and radioactive carry of Chernobyl. 

*The bad news* Apparently the use of plutonium enriched fuel rods in the No 3 reactor opens the possibility of very dangerous local contamination if there is any large scale radiation discharge. The emitted plutonium particles are highly likely to cause cancers.

So why did they have these plutonium enriched (MOX) fuel rods?  It seems like this was a good way of getting rid of a dangerous nuclear byproduct.  This artcile is well worth a read.


[







> B]MOX fuel rods used in Japanese Nuclear Reactor present multiple dangers[/B]	Print
> Tuesday, 15 March 2011
> Written by Joseph Trento
> 
> ...




http://dcbureau.org/201103151304/Na...onium-a-threat-from-reactor-number-three.html


----------



## spooly74 (17 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Such ignorance.
> 
> The GE reactors are widely recognised as being of poor design.
> 
> ...




Is this your reference from the link?



> A General Electric Co engineer said he resigned 35 years ago over concern about the safety of a nuclear reactor design used in the now crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.
> 
> Dale Bridenbaugh said the "Mark 1" design had "not yet been designed to withstand the loads" that could be experienced in a large-scale accident.
> 
> ...




The current problems exist because of the spent fuel rods outside primary containment.
This is a separate issue from the design of the reactor.


----------



## skc (17 March 2011)

spooly74 said:


> The current problems exist because of the spent fuel rods outside primary containment.
> This is a separate issue from the design of the reactor.




Dumping water with helicopters. I hope someone checked that the spent fuel rods are secured from the impact of the water being dropped, not to mention the strength of the spend fuel rod pool structure itself.


----------



## alphaman (17 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> What if there had been a 9.5 earthquake straight under the plant? What if terrorists attacked the plant after the earthquake and tsunami? What if...
> 
> Will man never learn that we can not possibly foresee every scenario and that there is always some risk?



Man you speak my mind. I think these people should pick up trading to keep their arrogance in check.


----------



## drsmith (17 March 2011)

The US seems to be getting increasingly nervous about the unfolding situation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-nuclear-usa-idUSTRE72C2UW20110317


----------



## nulla nulla (17 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> The US seems to be getting increasingly nervous about the unfolding situation.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-nuclear-usa-idUSTRE72C2UW20110317




Just a side thought, maybe we will get to see the effect of radiation fall out combining with genetic engineering as the winds blow the radiation from Japan accross the pacific ocean to the American farmlands. The red necks really could have rednecks, both of them.


----------



## Agentm (17 March 2011)

*Fukushima Nuclear Accident – 17 March update*

                   Posted on 17 March 2011 by Barry Brook                
                                        The  crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station is approaching a  weeks’ duration. The on-site situation remains extremely serious, with  glimmers of hope being shrouded by a shadow of deep uncertainty.
 If you’ve not been following the situation on BraveNewClimate, and want to recap, please read these recent updates:
Japan Nuclear Situation – 14 March updates
Further technical information on Fukushima reactors
Fukushima Nuclear Accident – 15 March summary of situation
Fukushima Nuclear Accident – 16 March update
 These are assumed knowledge for understanding the rest of this post.  The preparation of the material below was aided greatly by the private  advice of my acquaintances in the nuclear engineering field.
 As predicted yesterday, attention over the last 24 hours has focused  on the critical situation with the ponds used for temporary storage of  spent nuclear fuel at the individual reactor units, before it is moved  to a centralised facility on site. Although this old fuel has lost much  of its original radioactivity, the decline is exponential (see this  figure) which means that thermal energy must continue to  be dissipated for months.
 This figure shows the location of the spent fuel ponds:





	

		
			
		

		
	
The problem, as is explained in this *updated* fact sheet by the NEI,  is that as these ponds heat, their deep covering of water (which acts  as a radiation shield and a cooling mechanism), starts to evaporate. If  they reach boiling point, because of lack of operational maintenance  systems, the evaporation rate will accelerate. If exposed, the there is a  potential for these old fuel rods and their zirconium cladding to melt,  and radiation levels will rise considerably. The heat generated in  spent fuel depends on a number of parameters, including: (1) level of  build-up of fission products (burn-up) and (2) length of time after  having been taken out of the reactor.​ The spent fuel pool temperature has been rising gradually since last  Friday due to the loss of cooling pump (presumably no power source). As  we know from previous updates, the side of the Reactor 4 building has  been lost (it’s the left-most of the 4 buildings in the following  image):


 The Unit 4 reactor was already shut off for periodic maintenance when  the earthquake struck. IF the fire was caused by hydrogen,  its only  plausible source would be spent fuel degrading in steam. Under this  scenario, initial inventory was probably reduced by sloshing during the  earthquake, and heat generation and resulting evaporation/boiling would  thereafter be more than double that in other pools due to it containing  freshly off loaded fuel. Temperature indications in the absence of water  would be that of the mixture of steam and air in the location of the  thermowell.
 Nothing can be confirmed at this stage. As has been the case  throughout this crisis, information is hard to come by and must be  pieced together.
 Are the spent fuel in the pools in Units 3 and 4 are now uncovered? TEPCO claims that NRC Chief Jaczko was wrong  in claiming this, that the spent fuel pools in both Units 3 and 4 need  some refilling but are NOT dry. (The Japanese authorities are apparently  saying they’ve seen water still in the Unit 4 pool.) The big concern  here is that unlike the releases from damaged fuel in the reactor cores  of Units 1, 2, and 3, which were largely filtered by scrubbing in the  containment suppression pools (wetwell torus), releases of volatile  fission products (e.g., cesium and iodine) from these spent fuel pools  have direct pathways to the environment, if they remain dry for an  extended period.




	

		
			
		

		
	
Efforts to deliver water to these pools have proven to be very difficult, and fuel damage _may _be  occurring.  If they are exposed, then the use of the evaporation of  salt water as a heat sink over periods of more than a few days is not  viable because the quantities of salt deposited as the water evaporates  becomes large in volume and plugs the flow paths through the fuel,  degrading heat removal. Everything that is cooled becomes a heat sink to  condense anything volatilised. Unfortunately, a fresh water supply  seems difficult to come by.
 One option is to bring fresh water by helicopter, but the amounts  needed imply a large number of flights and gamma radiation levels are  high above the pools making overflights hazardous.  NHK has reported a number of  successful water dumps using helicopters  today. If radiation levels on the ground increase further, personnel  access will become more challenging.  Additional spent fuel is stored in  pools in Units 5 and 6 and in a large centralized storage pool.  A key  issue is how to continue to make up water to these pools in the longer  term, particularly if site access becomes more difficult.


​ It was announced at a press conference  that a total of 11 specially-equipped vehicles will be used to spray  water on the crippled reactors at Fukushima-1 after an access path is  cleared using bulldozers. The big advantages of fire trucks over  helicopters is that their water cannons can be better aimed, from the  side rather than the top, and their operation is continuous rather than  in batches so they can deliver vastly more water. It is clearly  an appealing option. An additional 130 personnel have also been moved back on site to help with work.​ Some additional key information from NEI:Crews began aerial water spraying operations from  helicopters to cool reactor 3 at Fukushima Daiichi shortly before 9 p.m.  EDT on Wednesday, March 16. The operation was planned for the previous  day, but was postponed because of high radiation levels at the plant.  News sources said temperatures at reactor 3 were rising. Each helicopter  is capable of releasing 7.5 tons of water.
 Spokesmen for TEPCO and Japan’s regulatory agency, Nuclear and  Industry Safety Agency, on March 17 Japan time refuted reports that  there was a complete loss of cooling water in the used fuel pool at  Fukushima Daiichi reactor 4.
 The spokesmen said the situation at reactor 4 has changed little  during the day today and water remained in the fuel pool. However, both  officials said that the reactor had not been inspected in recent hours.
 “We can’t get inside to check, but we’ve been carefully watching the  building’s environs, and there has not been any particular problem,”  said TEPCO spokesman Hajime Motojuku.
 At about 7 p.m. EDT, NISA spokesman Takumi Koyamada said the  temperature reading from the used fuel pool on Wednesday was 84 degrees  Celsius and that no change had been reported since then. Typically, used  uranium fuel rods are stored in deep water pools at temperatures of  about 30 degrees Celsius.
 Recent radiation levels measured at the boundary of the Fukushima  Daiichi plant have been dropping steadily over the past 12 hours,  Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said on Wednesday night  (U.S. time).
 At 4 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, a radiation level of 75 millirem per hour  was recorded at the plant’s main gate. At 4 p.m. EDT, the reading at  one plant site gate was 34 millirem per hour. By comparison, the Nuclear  Regulatory Commission’s annual radiation dose limit for the public is  100 millirem. Radiation readings are being taken every 30 minutes.
 Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said earlier today a  radiation level of 33 millirem per hour was measured about 20 kilometers  from the Fukushima Daiichi plant earlier this morning. He said that  level does not pose an immediate health risk.
 Edano said that TEPCO has resumed efforts to spray water into the used fuel pool at the damaged reactor 4.
 TEPCO also continues efforts to restore offsite power to the plant,  with up to 40 workers seeking to restore electricity to essential plant  systems by Thursday morning, March 17.​


----------



## Agentm (17 March 2011)

Based on the information coming out of TEPCO,   it appears that units 1,2 and 3 remain critical but stable. Partial   melting has almost certainly occurred in all three cores. There was   definitely a period of no water injection because of a pressure buildup   caused by stuck relief valve ”” always a potential issue for in high   pressure systems. This figure illustrates the current state of play with   the reactor units and spent fuel ponds:​ 

 The  following is the latest status report,  with timelines, from the  Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan  (FEPC) Washington DC  Office.​ ””””””””””–
*•    Radiation Levels*
 o    At 6:40AM (JST) on March 16, a radiation level of 400 milli  sievert  per hour was recorded outside the west side of the secondary   containment building of the Unit 3 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear   Power Station.
     At 6:40AM on March 16, a radiation  level of 100 milli sievert per  hour was recorded outside the west side  of the secondary containment  building of the Unit 4 reactor at Fukushima  Daiichi Nuclear Power  Station.
 o    At 8:47AM on March 16, a radiation level of 150 milli sievert per   hour was recorded outside the secondary containment building of Unit 2   reactor of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
     At 8:47AM on March 16, a radiation  level of 300 milli sievert per  hour was recorded between the exteriors  of the secondary containment  buildings of Unit 2 reactor and Unit 3  reactor of Fukushima Daiichi  Nuclear Power Station.
     At 8:47AM on March 16, a radiation  level of 400 milli sievert per  hour was recorded outside the secondary  containment building of Unit 3  reactor of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear  Power Station.
     At 8:47AM on March 16, radiation level  of 100 milli sievert per  hour was recorded outside the secondary  containment building of Unit 4  reactor of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear  Power Station.
 o    At 10:40AM on March 16, a radiation level of 10 milli sievert per   hour was recorded at the main gate of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear   Power Station.
 o    At 4:10PM on March 16, a radiation level of 1530 micro sievert per   hour was recorded at the main gate of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear   Power Station.
 o    For comparison, a human receives 2400 micro sievert per year from   natural radiation in the form of sunlight, radon, and other sources.  One  chest CT scan generates 6900 micro sievert per scan.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
 o    At 6:55AM on March 16, the pressure inside the reactor core was   measured at 0.17 MPa. The water level inside the reactor core was   measured at 1.8 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
 o    At 6:55AM on March 16, the pressure inside the reactor core was   measured at 0.043 MPa. The water level inside the reactor core was   measured at 1.4 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor*
 o    At 8:37AM on March 16, white smoke was observed emanating from the vicinity of the secondary containment building.
 o     At 9:55AM on March 16, the pressure inside the reactor core was   measured at 0.088 MPa. The water level inside the reactor core was   measured at 1.9 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
 o    At 11:32AM on March 16, the Japanese government announced that the   possibility of significant damage to the primary containment vessel  was  low.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor*
 o    At 4:08AM on March 15, the temperature of the spent fuel pool was measured at 183 degrees Fahrenheit.
 o    At 5:45AM on March 16, a fire occurred in the vicinity of the third floor of the secondary containment building.
 o    At 7:26AM on March 16, no flames or smoke was observed and thus it  was concluded that the fire extinguished on its own accord.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 5 reactor*
 o    At 4:00AM on March 16, the temperature of the spent fuel pool was measured at 141 degrees Fahrenheit.
*•    Fukushima Daiichi Unit 6 reactor*
 o    At 4:00AM on March 16, the temperature of the spent fuel pool was measured at 137 degrees Fahrenheit.
*•    Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and Accompanying Facilities*
 o    As of 12:00PM on March 15, power generation of all facilities was   restored to the commercial electricity grid from backup power  generation  systems. It was confirmed that no fire, damage to equipment,  injuries  to personnel occurred. Radiation levels were measured at a  normal level  of safety.
””””””””””–​ 



	

		
			
		

		
	
Further important information can be read at _World Nuclear News_, especially Problems for units 3 and 4 and Attempts to refill fuel ponds. Some key extracts:​The  Japan Atomic Industry Forum reports that the level of  water in unit  4′s fuel pond is low and damage to fuel stored there is  suspected.  Efforts are underway to refill the pool, including an  abandoned attempt  to douse the building with water from an army  helicopter, hoping to  get some to go through the damaged building. The  temperature of the  pond was last known to be 84 ºC on 14 and 15 March,  said the  International Atomic Energy Agency. There was no data for  today…
 Efforts to cool the partially exposed cores of units 1, 2 and 3   continue. So long as radiological conditions allow, a team of workers   pumps seawater into the reactor vessels. This boils away, raising steam   pressure which must later be vented. Fuel assemblies are exposed by   between one and two metres at the top, but the high thermal conductivity   of the zirconium alloy rod casings helps cooling with just the lower   portion of the rods submerged. This process is set to continue until the   heat produced by the core has reduced so that the entire core can be   covered.​The lack of recent temperature data may stem from a broken gauge. Please read the above _WNN_ links for further details.​ In sum, this accident is now significantly more severe than Three Mile Island in 1979.    It resulted from a unique combination of failures to plant systems   caused by the tsunami, and the broad destruction of infrastructure for   water and electricity supply which would normally be reestablished   within a day or two following a reactor accident. My initial estimates   of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the   cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally   sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that ‘there is no credible risk of a serious accident‘ *has been proven quite wrong as a result*.  It  remains to be seen whether my forecast on the possibility of   containment breaches and the very low level of danger to the public as a   result of this tragic chain of circumstances will be proven correct.   For the sake of the people there, I sure hope it does stand the test of   time.​


----------



## bellenuit (17 March 2011)

*At California Nuclear Plant, Emergency Response Plans Don't Include Earthquakes*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/california-nuclear-emergency-response_n_836751.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> My initial estimates   of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the   cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally   sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that ‘there is no credible risk of a serious accident‘ *has been proven quite wrong as a result*.  It  remains to be seen whether my forecast on the possibility of   containment breaches and the very low level of danger to the public as a   result of this tragic chain of circumstances will be proven correct.   For the sake of the people there, I sure hope it does stand the test of   time.​



I sure hope your forecast of a very low level of danger turns out to be right.

But, and this is my argument against nuclear power (though I accept that we're going to keep using it for the foreseeable future), I really don't think that we will ever be able to foresee every possible scenario and have a plan to cope with that.

There would have to be literally millions of possible scenarios for a nuclear disaster. I just can't see man ever being able to think of them all, let alone be able to cope with them.

The same applies to many things of course. But with nuclear the difference is the potential impacts of a disaster should one occur. No other man-made disaster comes close in terms of worst case long term effects.


----------



## Agentm (18 March 2011)

*Fukushima – 18 March morning updates, radiation and tsunamis*

                   Posted on 18 March 2011 by Barry Brook                




	

		
			
		

		
	
There have been further developments at Fukushima overnight that have, according to the IAEA, made the situation ‘reasonably stable‘ (although it is still serious). Given the state of play over the last week, I’ll take any positive sign I can get.
 Other points to note, as of the morning of Friday 18 March:
 1. FEPC says the following:Through visual surveys from the helicopter flying above  the Unit 4 reactor secondary containment building on March 16, it was  observed that water remained in the spent fuel pool. The helicopter was  measuring radiation levels above Unit 4 reactor secondary containment  building in preparation for water drops. This report has not been  officially confirmed.​2._ WNN_ says:The Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry said at 8.38pm  that a cable was being laid to bring external power from transmission  lines owned by Tohoku Electric Power Company. This was to be connected  when radiation levels had died down after a planned venting operation at  unit 2. In addition, one of the emergency diesel units can now be  operated and will be used to supply unit 5 and 6 alternately to inject  water to their used fuel pools. Later, the power will be used to top up  water in the reactor vessels…
 After clearing heavy explosion debris from tsunami and the various  explosions across the site over the last six days, eleven high pressure  fire trucks showered unit 3. World Nuclear News understands that 30  tonnes of water “was delivered” in an attempt to shoot water through the  holes in the side of the building, which appear to be very close to the  fuel ponds themselves…
 Despite high levels of radiation close to the units, levels detected  at the edge of the power plant site have been steadily decreasing [_the below is given in reverse chronological order_].
 17 March, 4.00pm: 0.64 millisieverts per hour
 17 March, 9.00am: 1.47 millisieverts per hour
 16 March, 7.00pm: 1.93 millisieverts per hour
 16 March, 12.30pm: 3.39 millisieverts per hour​3. The two statements above are supported by the updates from the NEI:In Japan, engineers have laid a power line that can  connect reactor 2 of the Daiichi facility to the off-site power grid,  the International Atomic Energy Agency reported. Workers are working to  reconnect the power to reactor 2 after they complete spraying water into  the reactor 3 complex to provide additional cooling to the used fuel  pool. Reconnecting to the power grid is expected to enhance efforts to  prevent further damage at the plant.
 Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency reported on Thursday  that the backup diesel generator for reactor 6 is working and supplying  electricity to reactors 5 and 6. TEPCO is preparing to add water to the  storage pools that house used nuclear fuel rods at those two reactors.
 Radiation readings at the Fukushima Daiichi site boundary were  measured today at a lower level, between 2 and 3 millirem per hour.
*Fukushima Daiichi site status*
 The reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant are in stable condition  and are being cooled with seawater, but workers at the plant continue  efforts to add cooling water to fuel pools at reactors 3 and 4. The  status of the reactors at the site is as follows:
 Reactor 1’s primary containment is believed to be intact and the  reactor is in a stable condition. Seawater injection into the reactor is  continuing.
 Reactor 2 is in stable condition with seawater injection continuing.  The reactor’s primary containment may not have been breached, Tokyo  Electric Power Co. and World Association of Nuclear Operators officials  said on Thursday. Containment pressure is at 65 psig, an indication that  containment has not been breached.
 Access problems at the site have delayed connection of a temporary  cable to restore offsite electricity. The connection will provide power  to the control rod drive pump, instrumentation, batteries, and power to  the control room. Power has not been available at the site since the  earthquake on March 11.
 Reactor 3 is in stable condition with seawater injection continuing.  The primary containment is believed to be intact. Pressure in the  containment has fluctuated due to venting of the reactor containment  structure, but has been as high as 83 psig.
 TEPCO officials say that although one side of the concrete wall of  the fuel pool structure has collapsed, the steel liner of the pool  remains intact, based on aerial photos of the reactor taken on March 17.  The pool still has water providing some cooling for the fuel, however  helicopters dropped water on the reactor four times during the morning  (Japan time) on March 17. Water also was sprayed at reactor 4 using high  pressure water cannons.
 Reactors 5 and 6 were both shut down before the quake occurred.  Primary and secondary containments are intact at both reactors.  Temperature instruments in the spent fuel pools at reactors 5 and 6 are  operational, and temperatures are being maintained at about 62 degrees  Celsius. TEPCO is continuing efforts to restore power at reactor 5.​If all of this is successful, the plant will be able to take over from the workers in cooling the fuel in the reactor.
_I’ll provide a further update at the end of today_. Meanwhile, you can track the comments on this post (*Note:*  I suggest we switch to this thread for the rest of today), which are  once again doing a great job at providing a minute-by-minute feed of the  latest developments.




 Below I reproduce a short essay by Ted Rockwell. Dr Rockwell is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. His classical 1956 handbook, _The Reactor Shielding Design Manual_,  was recently made available on-line and as a DVD, by the U.S.  Department of Energy. Back in 2002 he was co-author on an article in _Science _journal, “Nuclear Power  Plants and Their Fuel as Terrorist  Targets“.  It’s definitely worth reading as it’s highly relevant to the current  situation ”” if you bear in mind that the ‘terrorist’ in this context was  Mother Nature ”” and a brutal one at that.
 Ted’s short essay (Rod Adams has also reproduced this), given below, explains well what I meant by my earlier statement:What has this earthquake taught us? That it’s much, much  riskier to choose to live next to the ocean than it is to live next to a  nuclear power station.​


----------



## Agentm (18 March 2011)

””””””””””””””””””-
*




	

		
			
		

		
	
Fukushima: it’s not about radiation, it’s about tsunamis*
 A lot of wrong lessons are being pushed on us, about the tragedy now   unfolding in Japan.  All the scare-talk about radiation is irrelevant.    There will be no radiation public health catastrophe, regardless of how   much reactor melting may occur.   Radiation? Yes.  Catastrophe? No.
 Life evolved on, and adapted to, a much more radioactive  planet,  Our  current natural radiation levels””worldwide””are below  optimum.   Statements that there is no safe level of radiation are an  affront to  science and to common sense.  The radiation situation should  be no  worse than from the Three Mile Island (TMI) incident, where ten to   twenty tons of the nuclear reactor melted down, slumped to the bottom   of the reactor vessel, and initiated the dreaded China Syndrome, where   the reactor core melts and burns its way into the earth.  On the   computers and movie screens of people who make a living “predicting”   disasters,  TMI is an unprecedented catastrophe.  In the real world, the   molten mass froze when it hit the colder reactor vessel, and stopped   its downward journey at five-eights of an inch through the five-inch   thick vessel wall.
 And there was no harm to people or the environment.  None.
 Yet in Japan, you have radiation zealots threatening to order people   out of their homes, to wander, homeless and panic-stricken,  through the   battered countryside, to do what? All to avoid a radiation dose lower   than what they would get from a ski trip.
 The important point for nuclear power is that some of the nuclear   plants were swept with a wall of seawater that may have instantly   converted a multi-billion dollar asset into a multi-billion dollar   problem.  That’s bad news.  But it’s not unique to nuclear power.  If    Fukushima were a computer chip factory, would we consider abandoning the   electronic industry because it was not tsunami-proof?  It would be   ironic if American nuclear power were phased out as unsafe, without   having ever killed or injured a single member of the public, to be   replaced by coal, gas and oil, proven killers of tens of thousands each   year.
 Moreover, the extent and nature of the damage from seawater may be   less than first implied.  Rod Adams, a former nuclear submarine officer,   who operated a nuclear power plant at sea for many years, says that   inadvertent flooding of certain equipment with seawater was not   uncommon.  He includes electronics-laden missile tubes.  “We flushed   them out with fresh water,” he said.  “Sometimes we had to replace   insulation and other parts.  But we could ultimately bring them back on   line, working satisfactorily.”
 The lessons from Japan involve tsunamis, not radiation.
 ””””””””””””””–
*Footnote* – Some additional comments from Ted Rockwell, by email correspondence:
 I must admit that our  _Science _articles did  not give much   attention attention to the  small-volume containment  plants, and we   should do so after the information  on Fukushima has  come in.  Our   focus was on getting past the proving  that  scenarios that led to   intolerable situations were tolerably improbable.    This traditional   approach is an essential but not sufficient  part of  plant design.
 My approach was to come in from the  other side:  To  assume that the   worst situation was one that  led to some molten fuel,  coupled with   loss of containment  integrity, and ask: what then? Does  radioactivity   get out in great  enough quantities, into enough lungs? That’s    essentially the TMI  situation, and I concluded that it led to the TMI    outcome: a  disaster for the plant owner, but a wholly tolerable   situation   radiologically.  We’re going to have to go back and apply a    wider range  of conditions to that analysis.
 But  radiation must still be  treated like any other variable, and  not   the ultimate injury.  It  should not outrank death by  inhalation  of  coal particles, for  example. The  obsessive fascination with  radiation  as  the worst possible danger leads to  mass evacuation as the  most   conservative response.  I don’t know any  experienced disaster   manager  who agrees that mass evacuation is always a  conservative   response.


----------



## Agentm (19 March 2011)

a few pics worth thinking on


----------



## Agentm (19 March 2011)

also this


----------



## Julia (19 March 2011)

I keep hearing and reading that the people in the tsunami area are still without enough food, water, or basic medical supplies.  Why?  People in the evacuation centres were getting half a banana for breakfast, some 'gelatinous' drink, for lunch and it was not known what dinner would be, according to an article in today's Australian.

The suggestion was that the Japanese government are insisting they have everything under control and do not want to lose face by admitting how much help they need.

They are reluctantly accepting a large team of nuclear experts from the US.

If this is correct, it seems pretty amoral that their pride is coming before the care of their devastated people.


----------



## trainspotter (19 March 2011)

Didn't Japan have a shiny blue cable similar to the one we are getting here? Did it save them? Has it improved their way of life? What good is it to them now?

China Telecom Corp. (CHA), China's largest fixed-line operator by subscribers, was making emergency repairs on Friday to undersea cables damaged by the earthquake, Xinhua News Agency reported. The company said submarine fiber-optic cables connecting *Japan *and North America and a Pacific Crossing 1 cable near the city of Kitaibaraki, in Japan's northern Ibaraki Prefecture, were malfunctioning due to the earthquake. A China Telecom spokeswoman wasn't immediately available to comment on Monday on the status of the repairs. 

http://www.optoiq.com/index/photoni...ts/2011/3/Tsunami-submarine-cable-damage.html


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

The more I see and learn about this the more incredible I find it!

But, there was apparently a precident of 38 meters in 1896. This one was less than half the size! 



> *Tsunami topped 15 meters on Sanriku coast*
> 
> *The Yomiuri Shimbun*
> 
> ...


----------



## adobee (19 March 2011)

Some great posts here , doesnt any one want to put in a couple of line summary of the current situation or how they see it .. I can handle reading any more monster posts on nuclear science -  .... Please ...


----------



## tothemax6 (19 March 2011)

adobee said:


> Some great posts here , doesnt any one want to put in a couple of line summary of the current situation or how they see it .. I can handle reading any more monster posts on nuclear science -  .... Please ...



Odds of meltdown resulting in nasty radiation spew: 5%.
Odds the situation slowly calms down from here on in, with relatively minor radiation issues: 85%.
Odds of something else unforeseen: 10%.

The radiation 'leakage' that they say is happening is the kind that fades away quickly (steam from the reactor etc). The kind they are worried about is the 'exposed plutonium sets on fire and spews into the air' kind. That's _really_ bad news if that happens - airborne plutonium is _really_ nasty. It will hurt Japan for a long time. Like I say, odds that something like that will happen are currently about 5%.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 March 2011)

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tCOM#p/u/0/5TimeGBHY7I[/video]


----------



## So_Cynical (19 March 2011)

adobee said:


> Some great posts here , doesnt any one want to put in a couple of line summary of the current situation or how they see it .. I can handle reading any more monster posts on nuclear science -  .... Please ...





Odds of meltdown resulting in nasty radiation spew: 0.01%.
Odds the situation slowly calms down from here on in, with relatively minor radiation issues: 99.9%.
Odds of something else unforeseen: 0.01%.
Odds of the media needing to beat up the story 100%



Julia said:


> I keep hearing and reading that the people in the tsunami area are still without enough food, water, or basic medical supplies.  Why?  People in the evacuation centres were getting half a banana for breakfast, some 'gelatinous' drink, for lunch and it was not known what dinner would be, according to an article in today's Australian.
> 
> The suggestion was that the Japanese government are insisting they have everything under control and do not want to lose face by admitting how much help they need.
> 
> ...




Or the media is full of **** and have a need to report negatives.


----------



## tothemax6 (19 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Odds of meltdown resulting in nasty radiation spew: 0.01%.
> Odds the situation slowly calms down from here on in, with relatively minor radiation issues: 99.9%.
> Odds of something else unforeseen: 0.01%.
> Odds of the media needing to beat up the story 100%
> Or the media is full of **** and have a need to report negatives.



LOL.
It would be 99.98% to make 100% btw .
My odds for the bad things were higher simply because Tokyo Electric appears to be really sh-t at taking care of distressed reactors. I could probably do a better job. Seriously, they bring in diesel generators after the backup batteries had drained and, I believe the quote was, "the plugs did not fit".
FFS.


----------



## Agentm (19 March 2011)

*One Plus One – Fukushima’s legacy*

                   Posted on 19 March 2011 by Barry Brook                
                                        There have been _some _slow but positive developments in  Fukushima Daiichi today (Saturday 19th March), despite the ongoing  seriousness of the situation. Engineers are now on the brink of getting  external AC power restored to parts of the site, and water dousing operations  on the spent fuel ponds continue, as does cooling by sea water at  reactors 1 to 3. I will provide a full update on the situation at the  end of today.
 Meanwhile, follow the comments in this thread for the real-time updates by commenters.
 Below is a 10 minute interview with me that was shown on ABC TV  (Australia’s national television broadcaster) during the weekend, on the  conversation magazine-style program “One Plus One“. I’m interviewed by Mike Sexton.
 Please watch this if you _really_ want to understand where I’m  coming from on all of this (including my background and motivations),  and for my speculation on what the legacy of Fukushima might be, if  rational and logical heads are not kept.










  For readers in Australia, you can also watch this on ABC iView.
 For other videos on the _BraveNewClimate _YouTube channel, see here. For my 16 x 5-min audio podcasts (and ongoing), which cover nuclear power and climate change, see here. This one is a good starter: Integral Fast Reactor nuclear power – what is it and why should you care?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Odds of meltdown resulting in nasty radiation spew: 0.01%.





In view of the consequences of such an event, those odds are still disturbingly high.

We're talking about a massive impact on the environment and human life here. It's not as though it's something comparatively trivial like a cruise ship sinking, oil spill or collapse of a city building. 

The odds may well be low, but the consequences are huge and that's the problem.


----------



## skc (19 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Odds of meltdown resulting in nasty radiation spew: 0.01%.
> Odds the situation slowly calms down from here on in, with relatively minor radiation issues: 99.9%.
> *[*]Odds of something else unforeseen: 0.01%.*
> Odds of the media needing to beat up the story 100%
> ...




I bet you didn't see this coming!

UFOs At Fukushima Reactor Tragedy? HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5IV4kWMwU


----------



## poverty (19 March 2011)

skc said:


> I bet you didn't see this coming!
> 
> UFOs At Fukushima Reactor Tragedy? HD
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5IV4kWMwU




I WANT TO BELIEVE


----------



## Agentm (20 March 2011)

*Fukushima nuclear accident: Saturday 19 March summary*

                   Posted on 20 March 2011 by Barry Brook


                                        Last Saturday the the crisis level at the Fukushima Daiichi  nuclear power station was rapidly on the rise. Hydrogen explosions,  cracks in the wetwell torus and fires in a shutdown unit’s building ”” it  seemed the sequence of new problems would never end. A week later, the  situation remains troubling, but, over the last few days, it has not got  any worse. Indeed, one could make a reasonable argument that it’s  actually got better.
 Yes, the IAEA has now formally listed the overall accident at an INES level 5 (see here for a description of the scales), up from the original estimate of 4. This is right and proper ”” but it doesn’t mean the situation has escalated further,  as some have inferred. Here is a summary of the main site activities  for today, followed by the latest JAIF and FEPC reports. You also might  be interested in the following site map:







Another large cohort of 100 Tokyo fire fighters joined the spraying  operation to cool down the reactors and keep the water in the spent fuel  ponds. The ‘Hyper Rescue’ team  have set up a special vehicle for firing a water cannon from 22 m high  (in combination with a super pump truck), and today have been targeting  the SNF pond in unit 3. About 60 tons of sea water successfully  penetrated the building in the vicinity of the pool, at a flow rate of  3,000 litres per minute. Spraying with standard unmanned vehicles was  also undertaken for 7 hours into other parts of the the unit 3 building  (delivering more than 1,200 tons), to keep the general containment area  cool. The temperature around the fuel rods is now reported by TEPCO (via  NHK news) to be below 100C.


 Conditions in unit 3 are stabilising  but will need attention for many days to come. Promisingly, TEPCO has  now connected AC cables to the unit 1 and 2 reactor buildings, with  hopes that powered systems can be restored to these building by as early  as tomorrow (including, it is hoped, the AC core cooling systems), once  various safety and equipment condition checks are made.


Holes were made in the secondary containment buildings of Units 5 and  6 as a precautionary measure, to vent any hydrogen that might  accumulate and so prevent explosions in these otherwise undamaged  structures.  The residual heat removal system for these units has now  been brought back on line and these pools maintain a tolerable steady  temperature of 60C. More here.  These buildings were operating on a single emergency diesel generator,  but now have a second electricity supply via the external AC power  cable.
 Why are they concentrating on these  activities? Let’s revisit a bit of the history of last week. The spent  fuel pool still has decay heat (probably of the order of few MW in each  pool) that requires active cooling. When power went out on Friday, the  cooling stopped and the pool temperature has been rising slowly over the  weekend, and probably started boiling off (and a large volume may have  also been lost due to ‘sloshing’ during the seismic event). The pool is  located on the 4th floor above the reactor vessel level. It remains  unclear why they could not arrange fire trucks to deliver the sea water  before the fuel rods got damaged and started releasing radioactivity.  Now the effort is hampered by the high radiation level (primarily  penetrating gamma rays). This is the inventory of those spent fuel ponds  that have been causing so many headaches:






In order to remove the decay heat after the reactor shutdown, the  cooling system should be operating. Following the loss of offsite power,  the on-site diesel generators came on but the tsunami arrived an hour  or so  later and wiped out the diesel generators. Then the battery  provided the power for 8 hours or so, during which time they brought in  portable generators. However, the connectors were incompatible. As the  steam pressure built up inside the pressure vessel, the relief valve was  open and dumped the steam to the pressure suppression chamber, which in  turn was filtered out to the confinement building and the hydrogen  explosion took out the slabs.




 The sea water was then pumped in by fire trucks and the reactor  pressure vessels are now cooled down to near atmospheric pressure but  the fuel assemblies are uncovered at the top quarter or third (the FEPC  updates give the actual pressure and water levels). It appears that the  pressure vessels and the reactor containment structures are intact,  except the Unit 2, where the hydrogen explosion took place inside the  containment and hence damaging the lower wetwell torus structure (but  almost certainly not the reactor vessel, although the exact status is  unclear). It appears that the radioactivity releases are mostly coming  from the spent fuel storages than the reactor cores.

_World Nuclear News_ has a really excellent extended article here entitled “Insight to Fukushima engineering challenges“.  Read it! Further, you must watch this 8 minute reconstruction of the  timeline of the accident done by NHK ”” brilliant, and really highlights  the enormous stresses this poor station faced against a record-breaking  force of nature. As I’d noted earlier, just about everything that could  have went wrong, did. But valuable lessons must also be learned.


----------



## Agentm (20 March 2011)

The IAEA and Japanese government has reported the potential contamination of food products from the local Fukushima area via radioactive iodine   (mostly vented as part of the pressure relief operations of units 1 to   3). This is a short-term risk due to the 8-day half-life of  radioactive  iodine (and a small risk, given the trace amounts  recorded), but  precautions are warranted, as discussed here. What does this mean?In  the case of the milk samples, even if consumed for one  year, the  radiation dose would be equivalent to that a person would  receive in a  single CT scan. The levels found in the spinach were much  lower,  equivalent to one-fifth of a single CT scan.​… and to further put this in context:The  UK government’s chief independent scientific advisor  has told the  British Embassy in Tokyo that radiation fears from the  stricken  Fukushima nuclear power plant are a “sideshow” compared with  the  general devastation caused by the massive earthquake and tsunami  that  struck on 11 March. Speaking from London in a teleconference on 15   March to the embassy, chief scientific officer John Beddington said that   the only people likely to receive doses of radiation that could damage   their health are the on-site workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.  He  said that the general population outside of the 20 kilometre  evacuation  zone should not be concerned about contamination.​As to the possibility of a zirconium fire   in the SNF ponds, this seems unlikely. Zr has a very high combustion   point, as illustrated in video produced by UC Berkeley nuclear   engineers. They applied a blowtorch to a zirconium rod and it did not   catch on fire. The demonstration is shown about 50 seconds into this video. The temperature was said to reach 2000C [incidentally, I visited that lab last year!].​ The the _Japan Atomic Industrial Forum_ has provided their 12th reactor-by-reactor status update (16:00 March 19).​




 Here is the latest _FEPC_ status report:
 ””””””””””””””-


*Radiation Levels*
At 7:30PM on March 18,        radiation level outside main office  building (approximately 1,640 feet        from Unit 2 reactor building)  of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power  Station:       3,699 micro Sv/h.
Measurement results of ambient        dose rate around Fukushima  Nuclear Power Station at 4:00PM and  7:00PM on       March 18 are shown  in the attached two PDF files  respectively.
At 1:00PM on March 18, MEXT decided to carry out thorough radiation monitoring       nationwide.
For  comparison, a human       receives 2,400 micro       Sv per year  from  natural radiation in the form of       sunlight, radon, and other   sources. One chest CT scan generates 6,900 micro Sv       per scan.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
Since 10:30AM on March 14, the       pressure within the primary containment vessel cannot be measured.
At 4:00PM       on March 18, pressure inside the reactor core: 0.191MPa.
At 4:00PM       on March 18, water level inside the reactor core: 1.7 meters below the       top of the fuel rods.
As of 3:00PM on March 18, the injection of       seawater continues into the reactor core.
Activities for connecting the       commercial electricity grid are underway.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
At 4:00PM       on March 18, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.139MPaabs.
At 4:00PM       on March 18, pressure inside the reactor core: -0.002MPa.
At 4:00PM       on March 18, water level inside the reactor core: 1.4 meters       below the top of the fuel rods.
As of 3:00PM on March 18, the injection of       seawater continues into the reactor core.
Activities for connecting the       commercial electricity grid are underway.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor*
At 2:00PM on  March 18, six Self Defense emergency fire vehicles  began       to shoot  water aimed at the spent fuel pool, until 2:38PM  (39 tones of        water in total).
At 2:42PM on March 18, TEPCO began to shoot  water aimed at the spent        fuel pool, until 2:45PM, by one US Army  high pressure water  cannon.
At 3:55PM       on March 18, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.160MPaabs.
At 3:55PM       on March 18, pressure inside the reactor core: -0.016MPa.
At 3:55PM       on March 18, water level inside the reactor core: 2.0       meters below the top of the fuel rods.
As of 3:00PM on March 18, the       injection of seawater continues into the reactor core.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor*
No official updates to the information in our March 18 update have       been provided.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 5 reactor*
At 4:00PM on March 18, the       temperature of the spent fuel pool was measured at 152.4 degrees       Fahrenheit.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 6 reacto*r
At 4:00PM on March 18, the       temperature of the spent fuel pool was measured at 148.1 degrees       Fahrenheit.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Common Spent      Fuel Pool*
At 10:00AM on March 18, it was       confirmed that water level in the pool was secured.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Dry Cask      Storage Building*
At 10:00AM on March 18, it was       confirmed that there was no damage by visual checking of external appearance.
 
  At 5:50PM on March 18, Japanese Safety Authority (NISA: Nuclear and   Industrial Safety Agency) announced provisional INES (International   Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) rating to the incidents due to the   earthquake.
 Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1, 2 and 3 Unit = *5* (Accident with wider consequences)
 Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 = *3* (Serious incident)
 Fukushima Daini Unit 1, 2 and 4 Unit = *3* (Serious incident)
 (No official provisional rating for Fukushima Daini Unit 3 has been provided.)


----------



## Agentm (21 March 2011)

*Fukushima Nuclear Accident – Monday 21 March update*

                   Posted on 21 March 2011 by Barry Brook                




	

		
			
		

		
	
It’s  not yet time for the period of reflection and introspection on the  Fukushima Daiichi crisis, but we’re getting there. Even the U.S. says the worst seems to be over. The _IAEA _and _World Nuclear News_ have both released new updates on the situation (the IAEA report being particularly comprehensive this time, unlike some of their earlier sparse prose). Steve Darden at _Seeker Blog_ has done an excellent job at extracting the key snippets of information, and so I reproduce his efforts below:
 Offsite grid power has been brought to the Daiichi site, and is in the process of connection to each reactors equipment._Restoration of Grid_
_Progress has been achieved in restoring external power to the  nuclear power plant, although it remains uncertain when full power will  be available to all reactors. Off-site electrical power has been  connected to an auxiliary transformer and distribution panels at Unit 2.  Work continues toward energizing specific equipment within Unit 2._​Here’s an excerpt on radiation measurements:_Radiation levels near Fukushima Daiichi and beyond  have elevated since the reactor damage began. However, dose rates in  Tokyo and other areas outside the 30-kilometre zone remain below levels  which would require any protective action. In other words they are not  dangerous to human health._​At the MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering site, the 20 March status update is encouraging. Included in the report was a note on the actual tsunami heights at the reactor sites:_The Fukushima power plants were required by  regulators to withstand a certain height of tsunami. At the Daiichi  plant the design basis was 5.7 metres and at Daini this was 5.2 metres._
_Tepco has now released tentative assessments of the scale of the tsunami putting it at *over 10 metres at Daiichi and over 12 metres at Dainii*._​




	

		
			
		

		
	
In the associated WNN report, is the following IAEA graph of unit 5, 6 fuel pond temperatures._At units 1 and 2, external power has been restored.  Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) said it would restore functions in  the central control room shared by the units so that accurate readings  could again be taken from the reactor system. Next, workers will check  the condition of the water supply systems to the reactor and the used  fuel pond. With luck these will be able to go back into operation as  they had been immediately after the earthquake on 11 March._
_External power for units 3 and 4 should be in place ‘in a few days’ time’, said Tepco._
_*(…) Despite contradictory comments by the US Nuclear  Regulatory Commission to US politicians and media, most observers in  nuclear industry and regulation consider the measures taken by Japanese  authorities to be prudent and appropriate.*_​


----------



## Agentm (21 March 2011)

Some other points, from _NHK news_ reports:
 ・TEPCO planned an operation to release air containing radioactive   nuclidesinside the containment vessel at unit-3, give a situation of   pressure increaseinside the containment in this morning . However, TEPCO   decided not to releaseit since the pressure becomes stable later.
 ・Ministry of Defense performed activity of measuring surface   temperature ateach of unit 1,2,3 and 4 from the sky using Helicopter to   evaluate the effect ofthe operation of filling the pool with water from   the ground today and yesterday.Ministry of Defense expressed the  opinion  that surface temperature of each unitseems to be 100 degree  Celsius or  below.
 Some other interesting reads from the last day or two:




	

		
			
		

		
	
1. *Dan Yurman* from _Idaho Samizdat_ reviews the last weeks’ events, and asks some pointed questions about NRC Head Jaczko’s sources of information:What  remains to be known is how much distrust and  incomplete information  played a role in what has turned out to look like  a decision that  didn’t have to be made in time for a congressional  hearing. Yes, that’s  hindsight, but these questions deserve answers and  soon.​2. *Rod Adams* from _Atomic Insights _has a lot more details on the possibility (or lack thereof) of a zirconium fire in the spent fuel ponds. His bottom line:Despite  all previous word, a fire in any used fuel pool  is a fantasy that will  only occur in a simplified model. It is not a  concern in the real  world of water, metal and ceramics. (Note: I  struggled with whether or  not I should waffle and couch that statement  with “in my opinion”, but  decided against it. Please feel free to  conduct experiments that would  prove me wrong.)​3. *Charles Barton* from _Nuclear Green_ looks at some lessons from Daiichi:If  the Dai-ichi crisis fails to teach us the importance  of moving forward  on the implementation of a more advanced and safer  nuclear technology,  it would be a tragedy.​In the coming weeks, I will also be dissecting this new lesson of history on _BraveNewClimate_.   But I want to wait a little longer yet ”” at least until all those  units  are in cold shutdown and the spent fuel pools are lukewarm once  again!
 The the _Japan Atomic Industrial Forum_ has provided their 19th reactor-by-reactor status update (10:00 March 21):


 






	

		
			
		

		
	
Finally, here is the latest _FEPC_ status report:​ ””””””””””””””-


*Radiation Levels*
At 07:00PM (JST) on March 20,  radiation level outside main        office building (approximately 1,640  feet from Unit 2 reactor building)        of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear  Power Station: 2,623 micro Sv/hour.
Measurement results of  ambient dose rate around       Fukushima  Nuclear Power Station  announced       at 4:00PM and 7:00PM on March 20  are shown in the  attached two PDF files respectively.
For comparison, a human  receives 2,400 micro Sv per       year from  natural radiation in the  form of sunlight, radon, and other        sources. One chest CT scan  generates 6,900 micro Sv per scan.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
At 3:00PM on March 20, pressure inside the reactor       core: 0.187MPa.
At 3:00PM on March 20, water level inside the reactor       core: 1.7 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
At 3:00PM on March 20, pressure inside the primary       containment vessel: 0.17MPaabs.
As of 6:00PM       on March 20, the injection of seawater continues into the reactor       core.
As of       7:00PM on March 20, activities for recovering the external       power supply are underway.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
At 3:00PM on March 20,       pressure inside the reactor core: -0.016MPa.
At 3:00PM on March 20,       water level inside the reactor core: 1.4 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
At 3:00PM on March 20, pressure inside the primary       containment vessel: 0.125MPaabs.
At  3:05PM       on March 20, injection of seawater into the spent  fuel  storage pool has       begun, until 5:20PM (total about 40 tons)
As of       3:46PM on March 20,       the distribution board began to       receive the external power.
As of 6:00PM       on March 20, the injection of seawater continues into the reactor       core.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor*
At 4:00PM on March 20,       pressure inside the reactor core: 0.119MPa.
At 4:00PM on March 20,       water level inside the reactor core: 1.65 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
At 4:00PM on March 20, pressure inside the primary       containment vessel: 0.290MPaabs.
As of 6:00PM       on March 20, the injection       of seawater continues into the reactor core.
As of       7:00PM on March 20, about 2,605 tons of water in total has been shot to       the spent fuel storage pool.
As of 7:00PM       on March 20, activities for recovering the external       power supply are underway.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor*
At 8:20AM        on March 20, 10 Self Defense Force vehicles began to  shoot water aimed  at       the spent fuel pool, until 9:29AM.
As of       7:00PM on March 20, about 83 tons of water in total has been shot to the       spent fuel storage pool.
 As of 7:00PM on March 20, activities       for recovering the external power supply are       underway.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 5 reactor*
At 2:30PM on March 20: cold shutdown
At 4:00PM on March 20, the temperature of the spent       fuel pool was measured at   95.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 6 reactor*
At 10:14PM        on March 19, ump for Residual Heat Removal (RHR)  started up and  cooling       of spent fuel storage pool has started.
At 4:00PM on March 20, the temperature of the spent       fuel pool was measured at   82.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Common Spent Fuel Pool*
At 09:00AM on March 19, the temperature of the spent       fuel pool was measured at 134.6       degrees Fahrenheit.
 
 Our official sources are:


Office of The Prime Minister of Japan
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA)
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Press      Releases
Ministry of      Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)


----------



## Agentm (22 March 2011)

and the most thought provoking

coming our way, and this one *will *spread global..

a little taste of fukushima to enter our healthy lungs..

courtesy of japans thirst for cheap electricity.. without rational thought to consequence

we get to ingest and breathe the beautiful caesium as a consequence..

all good we are told.. all good!! lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 March 2011)

Agentm said:


> and the most thought provoking
> 
> coming our way, and this one *will *spread global..
> 
> ...



I can't really comment on where the radioactive materials will end up, but I would dispute absolutely that nuclear power is "cheap".

Cheap in what sense? It is not cheap financially unless you do dodgy accounting (usually done in the industry by writing off the entire capital cost of the power plant, then claiming that the operating costs of the plant are "cheap" compared to the entire construction and operating cost of a non-nuclear alternative). 

A few studies were done in Tasmania into the idea by various people during the period early 1970's to late 1990's. They generally concluded that the real financial cost of nuclear would be higher than the cost of other options (local coal, imported coal, oil, victorian gas, hydro, importing electricity, wind) and would be around several times the cost of the cheapest alternatives. Critically, the cost would be well above the level at which the big 3 electro-metallurgical plants, which are huge users of electricity, would become financially unviable.

Whilst the economics would be different for other locations, it has always been very clear that an Australian nuclear plant would be uneconomic compared to brown coal, black coal or natural gas and nothing has really happened to change that. Nuclear power is not cheap. At best, it's cheper than fuel oil - but there aren't many situations where that's the only alternative available.


----------



## DB008 (24 March 2011)

Found this alternative  (Thorium - I will post it in the Thorium thread too)

*Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 16 Minutes 
*



Article in "The Telegraph" - UK
*Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium*




> A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.
> This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.
> 
> If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.
> ...





...More on the link below....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html#dsq-content


----------



## Boggo (26 March 2011)

Not looking too good over there on the last update today, scroll down page of link to 01:30 UTC update.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html


----------



## Agentm (28 March 2011)

*Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident – 26 March status*

                   Posted on 26 March 2011 by Barry Brook                
                                        This post provides an update to the various situation summaries  at Fukushima Daiichi. Please switch to using this post for comments on  the latest status reports and news to  hand (the old one is now out of date). For general comments on, use the FD Open Thread #2, and for analysis of the event with respect to future lessons for nuclear power, use this post. Full situation summaries from TEPCO, FEPC and JAIF are given at the bottom of this report.
 This is a dramatic before and after photo of the Fukushima Daiichi  plant. Click on the image to see more b/a images of the  earthquake/tsunami damaged Sendai region (controlled with a swipe tool).




 Below is a very brief summary of some key events of the last few days, since the previous status report:
 1. There has been concern about salt accumulation in reactor vessels  1-3 (as steam evaporates the injected sea water, the salt is left  behind, and if concentrations build to beyond the saturation point, it  will begin to deposit and potentially insulate the fuel assemblies).  However, NEI now reports the following welcome news:Fresh water is being injected into the reactor pressure  vessel at reactor 3 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Japan’s  Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.
 TEPCO said that radioactive materials discovered at the reactor 3  turbine building possibly came from water from the reactor system, not  the spent fuel pool. TEPCO made that statement after collecting samples  of contaminated water in the reactor 3 turbine building and conducting a  gamma-emitting nuclide analysis of the sample. The reactor pressure and  drywell pressure at reactor 3 remained stable on Friday, leading TEPCO  to believe that “the reactor pressure vessel is not seriously damaged.
 Cooling efforts at Reactor 1 already had switched back to fresh water  cooling. Reactor 2 is still being injected with seawater, but is  expected to switch to fresh water soon.​




 The temperature at the bottom head of the reactor pressure vessels  are now 149 C (unit 1), 104 C (unit 2) and 111 C (unit 3) — detailed  data in reports below.
 2. TEPCO Workers laying cables in the turbine hall of unit 3 stood in  ankle-deep stagnant water and their feet were irradiated with beta rays  (~180 mSv dose), with shallow burns, after ignoring their dosiometer  warnings. They have since been hospitalised. Details in the reports  below. 17 personnel have now received doses of >100 mSv, but none  >250 mSv — the dose allowed by authorities in the current situation.
 3. Water spraying continues on spent fuel ponds 2, 3 and 4, to ensure  the uranium fuel rods remain covered. The temperature in unit 2 pool  was recently measured at 52 C (see detailed data below).
 4. On radiation: levels around the plant perimeter are relatively low  and steadily decreasing. Levels of I-131 in drinking water supplies in  Tokyo are now below regulated limits and restrictions have been lifted. The IAEA radiation monitoring data, at a distance of 34 to 62 km from Fukushima Daiichi, showed very low levels. To quote:On 25th March, the IAEA radiation monitoring team made  additional measurements at distances from 34 to 62 km from the Fukushima  nuclear power plant. At these locations, the dose rate ranged from 0.73  to 8.8 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of  beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.07 to 0.96  Megabecquerel per square metre.​5. _World Nuclear News_ provides a new summary: *Fukushima Daiichi two weeks on.* To quote:Investigations are now underway into the unexpectedly  high level of contamination in the water, particularly as the basement  of the turbine building is not a recognised radiation area. One theory  is that there is a leak from the reactor circuit, but pressures in the  reactor vessel indicate this must be elsewhere in the loop.
 Despite this disappointment, steady progress continues to be made on  site. Instrumentation is being recovered at units 1, 2 and 4 and lights  are on in the control rooms of units 1 and 3. Power connections have  reached all the units and checks are underway before normal systems can  be re-energised. The shared pond for used fuel pond has now been  reconnected.

Here are some interesting photographs from inside the buildings, taken on 23 March by by the Operational Safety Inspector.
 6. Geoff Russell (a regular BNC author on food and climate change    issues) has a really good piece, reflecting on many of the issues    discussed here over the last few weeks. His original title was: Japanese nukes … good news in a bleak landscape.
 Some useful technical details are available from NISA Major Parameters 1800 March 25, and the NISA summary conditions report for each reactor (click on the diagram below to access the PDF):


 Below is a situation update of the Fukushima Daiichi site, *from TEPCO Washington office*:
 ——————————
 (*1*) _Result of the investigation on highly radiated workers_.
 Below are the investigation results of  their working environment.   Radiation dose rate of surface of the water  is approximately 400 mSv/h.   Result of gamma-ray nuclide analyses based  on sampling of the  stagnant  water on the basement floor of the turbine  building of Unit 1  of  Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station. We are  assessing  radiation  dose of 2 worker’s leg skin by beta ray. This  incident would  be caused  because the workers regarded radiation dose of  working area  as low from  survey result of radiation dose on March 23, it  was about  0.5 mSv/hr  at 5:00 and no major water puddle there. Workers  continued  working  without recognizing change of work environment  although their  APD were  alarming during the work TEPCO has thoroughly  instructed its  employees  and contractor workers to pay attention to the  alarm of  their APD and  evacuate when necessary.


​


----------



## Agentm (28 March 2011)

Regarding this event, Fukushima Labor  Bureau gave TEPCO verbal  instructions. After summerising lessons learned  and future measures to  this event, TEPCO will report related government  ministries and  agencies to make sure radiation control thoroughly.
 (*2*) _High radiation water may come from the unit 3 reactor, not spent fuel pool_.
 As for the leakage of radioactive  materials at Unit 3 turbine  building, we assume the water came from the  reactor. We collected  sample of the contaminated water in the turbine  building of Unit 3 and  conducted the gamma-emitting nuclide analysis. We  confirmed the  following nuclides with short half-life.
*Nuclides              half-life (days)     density (bq/cubic centimeter)*
 Iodine 131              8.06                              1.2 x 10E6
 Cesium 136          13.16                             2.3 x 10E4
 Barium 140            12.75                            5.2 x 10E4
 There are 148 fuel rods with less than  one year of cooling period in  the spent fuel pool at Unit 3. Those fuel  rods were transferred to the  spent fuel pool between Jun 23 and 28, 2010  having had more than 200  days of cooling period. Nuclides with short  half-life had sufficient  time for decay in the spent fuel pool, so it  seems possible that the  contaminated water in the turbine building is  from the reactor.
 We do not deny possibility that there  might be certain damage to the  reactor of Unit 3. Even should that be  the case, as plant parameters  such as the reactor pressure and D/W  pressure is stable , we presume  that RPV is not seriously damaged.
 We are injecting seawater and from the  night of March 25, fresh water  into the reactor. The water turns into  steam and comes out from the  reactor vessel through the SRV, then  depressurized at the suppression  chamber and condensed to water. This  flow of water is cooling the  reactor. Having experienced fluctuations of  temperature and pressure,  the containment function might be loosened  somewhere. In any event, the  above is a possibility, not yet confirmed.
 (*3*) _Water injection into the pools and the reactors._
 Unit 1: Sea water injection into the  reactor pressure vessel, from  3:37 pm on March 25th, we have started to  inject fresh water into it.
 Unit 2: From 10:30 am on March 25th,  seawater injection through Fuel  Pool Cooling and Filtering System (FPC)  was started. This finished at  0:19 pm.
 Unit 3 From 5:35 am on March 24th,  seawater injection through Fuel  Pool Cooling and Filtering System (FPC)  was started and finished at  4:05 pm.
 Spraying at the spent fuel pool by Kawasaki City Fire Department was carried out from 1:28 pm to 4:00 pm on March 25th.
 Unit 4: From 2:35 pm on March 24th,  spraying water by the concrete  pumping vehicle was conducted and ended  at approximately 5:30 pm on the  same day.
 From 6:05 am on March 25th, seawater  injection through Fuel Pool  Cooling and Filtering System (FPC) was  started and finished at 10:20  am.
 ””””””””””””””””–
Here is the latest _FEPC_ status report:


*Radiation Levels*
At 7:00PM       (JST) on March  25, radiation level at main gate  (approximately 3,281 feet from Unit 2  reactor       building) of  Fukushima Daiichi       Nuclear Power  Station: 199.5 micro Sv/hour.
Measurement results of  environmental radioactivity level        around Fukushima Nuclear Power  Station announced at 7:00PM on March 25  are shown in the attached PDF  file. English version is available at:    http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1303962.htm
For  comparison, a human receives 2,400 micro Sv per       year from   natural radiation in the form of sunlight, radon, and other         sources. One chest CT scan generates 6,900 micro Sv per scan.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
At 11:00AM on  March 25, activities for the injection of freshwater  in place of  seawater       into the reactor core started and at 3:37PM,  the  injection of freshwater       into the reactor core started.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, pressure inside       the reactor core: 0.342MPa.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, water level       inside the reactor core: 1.65       meters below the top of the fuel rods.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, pressure inside       the primary containment vessel: 0.280MPaabs.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
At 10:00AM       on March 25, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
At  10:30AM       on March25,　TEPCO       began to inject seawater  into  the spent fuel pool via cooling and       purification line, until  at  12:19PM (approximately 38 tons in total).
At 11:00AM on March 25, activities for the injection of freshwater in place of       seawater into the reactor core started.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, pressure inside the reactor core: -0.016MPa.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, water level inside the reactor core: 1.4 meters below the       top of the fuel rods.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.12MPaabs.
As  of 7:00PM       on March 25, approximately 96 tons of water in  total  has been injected into       the spent fuel storage pool.
As of  7:00PM       on March 25, external power generation is  connected and  the functionality       of the electric devices is being  checked.
As of 7:30PM       on March 25, the injection of seawater into the reactor core       continues.
 
 

*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor*
At  11:00AM on March 25, activities for the injection of freshwater  in  place of       seawater into the reactor core started and at 6:02PM,   the injection of       freshwater into the reactor core started.
At  1:28PM       on March 25, Kawasaki City Fire Department began to  shoot  water aimed at       the spent fuel pool until 4:00PM  (approximately  450 tons in total).
At 2:00PM       on March 25, pressure inside the reactor core: 0.038MPa.
At 2:00PM       on March 25, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.1089MPaabs.
At 2:10PM       on March 25, water level inside the reactor core: 1.9 meters below the top of the fuel       rods.
As of 7:00PM       on March 25, approximately 4,497 tons of water in total has been shot to       the spent fuel storage pool.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor*
At 6:05AM on  March25, TEPCO began to inject seawater into the spent  fuel pool via  cooling       and purification line, until at 10:20APM.
At  7:05PM       on March 25, TEPCO began to shoot water aimed at the  spent  fuel pool, with       a specialized vehicle normally used for  pumping  concrete.
As of 7:00PM       on March 25, approximately 685 tons of water in total has been shot to       the spent fuel storage pool.
As  of 7:00PM       on March 25, external power generation is  connected  and the functionality       of the electric devices is being  checked.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 5 reactor*
At 3:00PM       on March 25, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 98.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
At 3:00PM       on March 25, the temperature of the water in the reactor core: 129.0 degrees Fahrenheit.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Unit 6 reactor*
At 3:00PM       on March 25, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 69.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
 
*Fukushima Daiichi Common Spent Fuel Pool*
As of 7:00PM       on March 25, approximately 130 tons of water in total has been injected to       the spent fuel storage pool.
 
  ””””””””””””””””””””
  Finally, the latest _Japan Atomic Industrial Forum_ summary table (21:00 March 25):


----------



## Agentm (29 March 2011)

*Josef Oehmen and Fukushima – Would I have believed myself?*

                   Posted on 29 March 2011 by Barry Brook                


On the 13th of March, I posted an article called “Fukushima Nuclear Accident – A simple and accurate explanation“.  This was early on in the Fukushima crisis when people were desperately  hungry for understandable information, and yet there were scarce few  good explanations available. The post had been written by Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston. I’d stumbled across it when it had just been published on Jason Morgan’s new blog, and thought it was worth re-broadcasting, so I contacted Jason and got his and Josef’s permission to reprint.
 The rest is history… Via my and Jason’s contacts and through Twitter and the blogs, it soon ‘went viral‘ , and later the _Energy Collective_ reposted my version (with permission) and this amplified its audience even further. A group from MIT then took over management of the information,  and did a few further updates, which I also mirrored. To me, it was an  example of the internet at its best ”” exponential networking of key  information.
 However, the story doesn’t end there. It also created a huge amount of indignation, including a flood of vitriolic _ad hominem_  comments on this blog that, if I’d let through the moderation queue,  would have made your gentle eyes water! As the situation at Fukushima  worsened, the MIT NSE group  provided updates that improved upon the original information a little,  and also toned down some of the stronger conclusions that had proven  overly optimistic (I was also guilty of not fully appreciating the  seriousness of the situation caused by the 14 m tsunami at Daiichi  Plant). This updating of the information was, apparently, was the most _heinous _of crimes, and Josef himself was cast as the evil (and grossly unqualified) mastermind at the heart of an international conspiracy! (I was, alas, but a mere pawn in artful machinations…). The story was even taken up by _New Scientist_, although they got some of the detail (e.g., sequence of events) wrong.
 So, what does the fiendish genius ”” with whom I’m since become firm  internet buddies ”” have to say on this matter? Should people have  listened to him, or should his article have been rightly consigned to  ghastly the abyss of HTTP 404 errors? You decide, when you read this guest post…
 Oh, and if you’d like to participate in a little 5 minute survey as  part of the follow-up research that Josef is doing on this little drama,  click here…
*

Would I have believed myself? On evaluating the quality of reports on topics that one does not know a whole lot about*

*Guest Post* by Josef Oehmen. _Josef is a research scientist in mechanical engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology_.
 On Sunday, March 13, my cousin in Japan posted an email I had written  to him on his blog in the early morning at 3am EST. The email explained  the context of nuclear physics and engineering, as well as discussed  the events at the Daiichi-1 reactor until that point. It also featured  my very strong opinion that they are safe. By lunchtime, it was the  second most twittered site on the internet (you can read the whole story  at http://bit.ly/e1It0T).  At the end of the day, it had been translated into more than 9  languages (often multiple times), and after 48 hours had been read by  several million people. Two weeks into my unwanted and luckily rapidly  cooling off Web 2.0 stardom, I have begun working through the trauma and  reflecting. Thanks for sharing, you might think. But one question in  particular came up that also has some general relevance:
 Would I have believed myself if I came across that blog and had no  prior knowledge of nuclear physics and engineering? Or asked another  way: How do you judge the quality of TV, radio, print and internet news  reporting on topics that you are only superficially familiar with?
 Read the answer below. And like everything I write, it is rather lengthy!

Working in an interdisciplinary field as an academic, it is often  necessary for me to judge the quality of information from areas outside  my core expertise and decide whether they are reliable sources worth  studying. Also, when you work with students, you start to develop little  antennas when you read to judge if the student really got what she or  he is writing about, and ultimately the quality of the students work  (although you as the supervisor of course know everything better, well,  you might not _always_ be familiar with _all_ the details).
 So let’s take the example of my email-turned-blog, imagine I was  living in Japan, had no idea about nuclear science and engineering (not  too big a stretch someone just said), was looking for some info on  Fukushima and came across Jason’s blog. Do I read it? All of it? What do  I do then?
 My approach to evaluating any sort of reports on the internet (and  elsewhere) consists of 5 elements.: 2 regarding trustworthiness, 2  regarding the style (as a measure of effort put into a piece, but also a  good indicator of the level of understanding of the author of the  subject that he/she write about) and 1 element for content (arguably the  most difficult to judge if you are not already familiar with the  field). I will have to give myself credit on some of the dimensions, so I  am asking you ahead of time for your forgiveness of some literary  narcissism in the following.


----------



## Agentm (29 March 2011)

*1. **Judging obvious fishiness (Trust)*
 When you surf the web, you come across a lot of stuff that you can   safely disregard immediately. So I have two criteria for an immediate   go/no-go decision at the onset:
*a. Context:* What is the  context of the information? Blogs can  be places where people put great  stuff, but also incredibly stupid  things (as I said, just Google my name  these days). In the case of  Jason’s blog, no points for great existing  content, but also no minus  points for tons of conspiracy theories and  UFO posts. 0 points
*b. Hoax potential:* Would  I have believed the whole story,  cousin at MIT writing an email,  setting up a blog to share it? Probably  yes. Story looks interesting  enough at first glance and setting up a  blog is little enough work.  Testing the opposite hypothesis: Why would  anyone go through that much  trouble of writing such a long text; invent  such a boring cover story;  and then assign the authorship to a total  nobody in nuclear engineering,  and not some expert in the field? So  again, nothing major in favor, but  also not a deal killer, 0 points.
*2. **Trustworthiness of the author (Trust)*
 Again, we have two criteria:
*a. Past experience in the field.* Is the author an authority in the field? Google clears that one up pretty quickly, certainly not. -1 point.
*b. Bias, agenda, background:* Checks out, engineering guy, MIT, probably has done his homework. 1 point.
*3. Style and presentation (Style)*
*Is the narrative and style appealing?*  Again, I usually use this  as an indicator of effort and level of  understanding on the side of  the author. Before I send the original  email of to Jason, I scanned it  one more time and thought to myself “Hm,  this has actually turned into a  nice piece of writing.” I probably  would have had the same reaction  scanning the text – well structured,  flowing narrative, clear  reasoning. 1 point.
*4. **Quality of the structure of the work (Style)*
*Does the article follow a logical structure? *The  article does  seem well structured. It introduces the fundamentals, then  progresses  to describe what happened in Fukushima so far and drawing on  these  fundamentals. Seems to make sense. However it is not an academic   treatise and strongly opinionated. Still, 1 point.
*5. **Content quality of the work (Content)*
 Here, since this is the most important category for me, I use a number of criteria:
*a. Are the general fundamentals right?*  Are general engineering  and physics fundamentals right that are used in  the writing? Are the  terms correctly used? Yes, 1 point.
*b. Are specifics right?*  Are specific fundamental facts (e.g.  half-life, types of elements etc.)  and specific facts (sizes, amounts,  temperatures, events) correct to the  extent that I can verify them?  Yes, 1 point.
*c. Is there an uninterrupted logical flow from context and facts to interpretation?*   For the most part, yes. There are no logical breaks between the   context, the facts being discussed in that context and the conclusions   that are drawn. In its own little universe, it makes sense, no   conclusions falling out of nowhere, no contradictions. However, again,   the writing is not objective and strongly opinionated. But still, 1   point.
*d. Are the sources given?*  Does the article contain sources so I  could verify the claims and facts  presented by the author? No, not in  the narrative, not as footnotes. -1  point.
*

6. **Possible next actions:*
 So, what should I do with what I just learned from reading the   document? If we tally up the points for a first impression, we get 4 out   of 10 points. And looking at the critical points, one of them is a   biggy: No sources so I could easily verify if what the author claims is   true or not. So what to do with it?
*a. Disregard.* This would mean thinking “oh my god, what a load of junk and a waste of time”. No, that is not what I would have done.
*b. Use it to build mental model of the problem and investigate further*.   This means I use my newly acquired knowledge to build a mental model  of  the problem. What is the relevant context? What are the critical  facts I  need to know or monitor? That mental model is then tested (can I   confirm what was said about the context, can I confirm what facts were   presented?), and once that is done, run with it to grow the context   (i.e. integrating understanding of spent fuel ponds) and interpret   incoming facts (i.e. how dangerous is the latest venting of steam)?
*c. Believe and be done with it.*  The information I just acquired  solves my problem. I believe everything  and am done with it (in this  case, worrying about Fukushima).
 As you can probably tell by the length of discussion of the different   points above, I would have gone with b. That concludes my therapeutic   reflections. And maybe you find the assessment process useful to make a   more conscious choice of the news programs in TV, radio, press and   internet you decide to support (I did, and that is why I love Barry and   his site bravenewclimate).
 Where does that leave us?
*1. Help people understand the context.* If you help  people to  understand the context, you help them to help themselves in  the future.  My hope is that the email made a small contribution to  helping the  general public, as well as some journalists, in building the  context to  make a better informed assessment of new facts as they come  in. Do  your part with your family and friends (as I had originally  intended…)
*2. Take a stand against mass hysteria. *The email I  wrote  contains both an introduction to some relevant physics and  engineering,  as well as strong opinions about the safety of the plant  you may or  may not share. One part lives on on the MIT website that was  created to  provide some more of the same, fact-based and understandable  context  information; the other part has hopefully inspired a couple of  people  to also speak their mind in a general atmosphere of panic.
*3. Demand balanced and quality reporting. *Demand  discussions of  “possible” and “most likely” scenarios in the news. Call  the newspaper  editor, TV station and radio station and complain about  the garbage  that is still put out there. Make a conscious choice  regarding your  news viewing, reading and listening habits. News shows  are out there to  produce viewers, listeners and readers that they can  sell to  advertisers, not quality news. If you don’t demand it, it won’t  happen.


----------



## ghotib (29 March 2011)

Thanks for that 2-part post Agentm. This is a succinct statement of the approach I'm still trying to articulate for my own reading about climate science. The best part, and the hardest, is the 3 choices for what to do with the article. His choices (a) and (c) are both sloppy and/or dishonest in my view, but (b) needs time and energy that are not always available. I'd add (d) Suspend judgement. 

Ghoti


----------



## Agentm (1 April 2011)

*Fukushima Daiichi crisis – April 1 perspective*

                   Posted on 1 April 2011 by Barry Brook                
                                        The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis has moved off the front  page of most newspapers, but a lot continues to happen, and the  situation remains unresolved. Below I offer some personal perspectives  on some of the things that have been widely reported over the last few  days, and then I conclude with some official updates.
_Disclaimer_: What follows is _my _interpretation of  the sparse and often confusing information being made available by  TEPCO, NHK etc. Take or leave at your discretion.


Will the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (a Gen III unit) be built at Fukushima Daiichi to replace units 1-4?

*1. **Plutonium detected in the soil around the plant.* A few isotopes of plutonium (Pu) have been found in soil at various test sites at the FD plant. This has sent some folks on _Twitter _apoplectic. So where does it come from?
 One theory, and quite a reasonable one, is that it is the global  residual left over from the extensive atmospheric atomic weapons testing  of the 1950s ”” 1970s. That would help explain the presence of Pu-238,  for instance ”” an isotope not readily created in a power reactor.
 Another thought is that there was a local source, either  from volatilisation of sloughed material in the drying spent fuel ponds,  or perhaps from the reactor cores (that was then carried away in minute  traces via the vented steam). Being a heavy metal, however, the Pu  would not mobilse readily and would deposit very locally. Remember, Pu  is present in all spent fuel, via the U-238 –> Pu-239 transmutation  pathway. _All reactor fuel elements that have been fissioning will contain plutonium_. It  is not something peculiar to mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel (which was being  used in FD unit 3), as some have implied ”” there has been a lot of  nonsense written about this during the past few weeks.
 In short, Pu is a metal, not a demon. Indeed, from my perspective on the Integral Fast Reactor technology,  I see Pu as THE fuel of the future, and boldly predict that it will be  looked back on, by some far distant civilisation, as among the most  important elements humankind ever encountered. However, that’s for  another post for another day. But if you want the full review now, please read Cohen.
*2. **Containment integrity and core damage*. The story that hit the headlines was this…Richard T. Lahey, former chair of nuclear engineering at  Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, N.Y., was quoted as saying  that the evidence he had seen indicated that fuel melted through the  pressure vessel of reactor No. 2 at some point after the crisis began.  He told The Guardian:
 “The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and  the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through  the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it  is down on the floor of the drywell.”​While I respect his personal opinion as an engineer with professional experience with GE BWRs, I _really _don’t  think he’s correct– to me, as a logical analyst, it’s just not  consistent with the recent data. The reactor pressure vessel (RPV)  outlet temperature, RPV internal pressure, and drywell pressure  readings, have all remained relatively stable over the last few days  (see latest FEPC and JAIF reports at the foot of this blog entry). I  can’t see that this could possibly have been the case if chunks of  molten metal had burned a gaping hole through the 8″ thick steel vessel  and then fizzed through the concrete floor to boot. It certainly didn’t  happen at TMI-2 in 1979, and I don’t think that it happened at Fukushima  unit 2 either. Lahey seems to think his theory is supported by the high  radiation readings in the water trench adjacent to unit 2… however, I  disagree, as I explain in point 3.
*3. **Trench water*. I think _World Nuclear News_ had done an excellent recap on this: *Tsunami likely filled trenches*. In short:Analysis of the trenches at Fukushima Daiichi indicates  they were probably flooded by the tsunami. Low radioactivity in one  trench may result from capture of radionuclides from the air but high  levels in another are unexplained…
 …But while an answer appears close on the presence of the water, the  levels of radioactivity remain unexplained. The trench at unit 2 is a  serious concern due to radiation levels from surface measurement in  excess of 1000 millisieverts per hour. Further sampling has not yet  taken place due to this extraordinary level, and it is not clear if the  dose rate is representative of the whole 6000 cubic metre body of water,  although it does match the level in the basement of the turbine  building. Unit 2 suffered suspected damage to its torus suppression  chamber on the morning of 15 March.​




 The key to this riddle, I think, is the wetwell torus breech (which  is likely to be a pinhole or crack) ”” there has clearly been damage to  containment at unit 2, but NOT, I think, to the RPV. The radioactive  water in the trench could also plausibly have come from cracked/burst  piping or seals elsewhere in the containment/primary system (remembering  that in a BWR, the cooling water/moderator also runs through the  turbine directly, unlike in a PWR). But there is no reason to think that  this water comes directly from the RPV or drywell (which is where the  fuel would be if it had melted through the RPV). Indeed, I think the  chances of a large steam explosion at this stage of events ”” more than  two weeks out from the core damage event ”” is remote in the extreme, and  even if this highly unlikely chain of events did occur, it would still  not spread reactor fuel over a wide area, because most of the heavier  material is very difficult to mobilise  and disperse (remembering that  there is no burning graphite in this situation, unlike Chernobyl, and  even in that accident most of the actinides stayed put).
 The weird theories of Caldicott  and her ilk, in which she fantasises about some ‘magical’ mechanism  that is able to spread fine particulates of Pu across the landscape and  into the lungs of millions of humans, and so (she outrageously claims)  render the Japanese islands uninhabitable as a result, is simply beyond a  joke (from _many _angles). Actually, it’s nothing short of appalling, grossly unscientific, hyper-alarmism.
*4. **Spent fuel ponds*. These continue  to get serious attention, with regular injections of water. They have  likely been the primary source of the Cs-137 releases. The current TEPCO  plan is to switch to fresh water injection ASAP.  The pools in units 5 and 6 are now stable and both below 40C (see  reports given at the end of this post), but there is still some concern  of the pools in units 2, 3 and 4 especially. There was even a report  that authorities are still considering entombing them in concrete.  It’s possible, but I really don’t think that will happen because it may  solve a few short-term problems, and create other longer-term  site-management headaches (_personal judgement_).


----------



## Agentm (1 April 2011)

*5. **Radation levels in the ocean*.  These continue to be  elevated close to the plant, due presumably to site  run-off and the  flushing/settling of airborne particles, but drop away  rapidly with  distance as the isotopes are spread in the ocean waters, as  expected.  The I-131 has a short half life, and the longer-lived Cs-137  does not  bioaccumulate like mercury (for instance). I thought John  Bennetts,  writing in response to another BNC commenter who had earlier  objected  vociferously to my rather bland statement about the ‘disperse  and  dilute’ principle, summed it up rather well:Firstly,  to demand that a reference be provided to  support the notion that  500ml of water, when mixed with the waters of an  ocean, actually  dilutes! I am shocked! Indeed, once the dilution factor  achieves 128,  then all reported isotope concentrations will be below  the reporting  limit, i.e. of no interest to the regulatory authorities.  So what’s  there to worry about? At that point, your own concerns will  become  baseless. As per the table at the head of this thread, three  limits  have been exceeded and publicly reported.
 With a half-life of 8 days, the offending isotope will naturally  decay  by a further factor of 128 in 7*8 = 56 days, after which time you  can  be doubly assured that no nasty exceedances remain. I have no doubt   that assessment of the real world impacts will be reviewed and assessed   and talked about for some time to come, but the fact remains, that once   the waters have been diluted in the Pacific, there will be no cause  for  further alarm. There will be no ongoing public health threat and  there  will be no threat to the food chain.
 The only threats after dilution will be those which arise due to   incomplete dilution, e.g. possible uptake in molluscs of certain   species, or in aquatic vegetation, and even these will dissipate rapidly   with time. I am sure that there are many suitably qualified people who   will be involved in ensuring that hypothetical secondary effects are   assessed and monitored and that, where doubt exists, actions such as   bans on fishing are put in place. You have added precisely nought to the   process of rational assessment, review and response which will ensure   that the community’s health will not be damaged through these releases.​*6. **Future of Fukushima Daiichi site*.  TEPCO  have announced that units #1 to #4 will be decommissioned once  the  crisis is finally closed off. Hardly surprising. I said about 2  weeks  ago that 1-3 were write-offs, and although unit 4 didn’t have a  fuel  loading during the accident, the secondary containment has been so   badly damaged by the hydrogen fires and problems with the drying spent   fuel ponds that it was inevitable that it’d also be curtains. _World Nuclear News_ has more on that story here.  The  decomm period is likely to take 5-10 years, based on TMI-2  experience  (TMI-1 is still running, incidentally), and perhaps longer  given the  serious problems they’ve had with multiple reactor units. The  fate of  the undamaged units 5 and 6, which are some 200 m distance  from 1-4,  remains unresolved. I suspect they’ll eventually be put back  into  operation, as Japan _really_ needs their electricity, but   probably not for 12+ months. From that WNN story, there is also now   speculation about whether the slated Gen III units (GE advanced boiling   water reactors, similar to those built at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in the 1990s) will be built on the Fukushima Daiichi site the future:Tepco  had planned to construct two 1380 MWe Advanced  Boiling Water Reactors  at Fukushima Daiichi and the start of work on  these was slated for  2012. This was a delayed date as a result of  additional earthquake  engineering flowing from what the company learnt  during a July 2007  earthquake that hit similar reactors at Kashiwazaki  Kariwa. Tepco  contracted for 1600 MWe of new coal generation and 4500  MWe of gas to  bridge the supply gap.​So, at least that’s clear. Once again, it’s nuclear, or it’s _coal and gas_.
*7. **Other useful unofficial posts.* Charles Barton from _Nuclear Green _ looks at the good, the bad and the ugly side of reporting on the Fukushima crisis. George Monbiot comments on _The double standards of green anti-nuclear opponents_   (We must apply the same standards to all energy-generating technology   as we do to nuclear power). Will Davis, a former U.S. navy reactor   operator, has an interesting blog going here: _Atomic Power Review_, with some informed theories and speculation on what the FD data mean. Worth checking out.
*8. Donations to BraveNewClimate.* Many people have  asked about  this, in the comments and privately, and I thank them for  their  generosity. However, I’ve always maintained that I’d rather pay  for the  running of the site myself ,on principle. That is, I don’t want  to be  seen to profit from this venture in any way, because I do it for   non-monetary reasons. Indeed, it’s fair to say that I get more than   enough reward out of the work by having people read my posts and for   them providing a wonderful stream of comments that really makes this   blog alive (even if I don’t always agree with them!). That community   input makes me feel rich indeed.
 (Oh, and I don’t get any $$ from the Google Ads that run ”” this is  how  WordPress extracts their pound of flesh for their otherwise largely   free [and excellent] hosting service ”” I just pay them for domain   redirection etc.).
 ””””””””””””””””””””””
Okay, on to some (semi-) official stuff. The latest IAEA report is here (last updated on 30 March). _NEI_ update status here. Some snips:
At the Fukushima Daiichi site, workers continued to  inject fresh water into reactors 1, 2 and 3 to keep them cool, while at  the same time dealing with water that has pooled in the basements of  turbine buildings and in concrete trenches near the units. As available  storage space in the reactors’ condensers is filled, Tokyo Electric  Power Co. is looking to store the radioactive water in tanks that will  be brought to the facility. TEPCO has switched to fresh water for  spraying the spent fuel pools for reactors 1, 2, 3 and 4.
 All the units at Daiichi are operating on off-site electric power and  work continues to connect equipment. High radiation levels and wet  equipment still hampers restoration of the plants’ original machinery.​


----------



## Agentm (1 April 2011)

Here is the latest _JAIF_ status update, as of 1600 on 31 March 2011:







    Here are links to the latest reports from the Japanese _Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency_ (NISA):
Conditions of Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1-6(As of 14:00 30th, 2011)
Fukushima Di-ichi Nuclear Power Station Major Parameters of the Plant (As of 14:00, March 30th)
March 30th, 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Monitoring points
    Finally, the most recent _FEPC _report:
*•	Radiation Levels*
    o	On March 30, it was announced that  radioactive nuclide I-131 was detected from the seawater sampled near  the seawater discharge point of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station at  1:55PM on March 29. The level of concentration was approximately 3,355  times higher than the maximum permissible water concentration set by the  government.
o	At 6:30PM on March 30, radiation level at main gate (approximately  3,281 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear  Power Station: 159 micro Sv/hour.
o	At 6:30PM on March 30, radiation level at west gate (approximately  3,609 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear  Power Station: 106.3 micro Sv/hour.
o	Measurement results of environmental radioactivity level around  Fukushima Nuclear Power Station announced at 7:00PM on March 30 are  shown in the attached PDF file. English version is available at:http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304082.htm
o	For comparison, a human receives 2,400 micro Sv per year from natural  radiation in the form of sunlight, radon, and other sources. One chest  CT scan generates 6,900 micro Sv per scan.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
    o	At 7:30AM on March 29, transferring the  water found at the turbine building to the condenser was suspended  because the water level of the condenser became almost full. (Correction  of the previous day’s report that stated as of 3:00PM on March 29,  transferring the water found at the turbine building to the condenser  continues.)
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, pressure inside the reactor core: 0.34MPa.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, water level inside the reactor core: 1.6 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.23MPaabs.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, the temperature of the reactor vessel measured at the water supply nozzle: 518.2 degrees Fahrenheit
o	As of 4:00PM on March 30, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
    o	At 4:45PM on March 29, preparation work to recover and transfer the water found at the turbine commenced.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 118.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, pressure inside the reactor core: -0.023MPa.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, water level inside the reactor core: 1.5 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
o	At 1:00PM on March 30, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.1MPaabs.
o	As of 4:00PM on March 30, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.
o	As of 7:00PM on March 30, approximately 96 tons of water in total has been injected into the spent fuel storage pool.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor*
    o	At 1:30PM on March 30, pressure inside the reactor core: 0.018MPa.
o	At 1:30PM on March 30, water level inside the reactor core: 1.85 meters below the top of the fuel rods.
o	At 1:30PM on March 30, pressure inside the primary containment vessel: 0.1064MPaabs.
o	As of 4:00PM on March 30, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.
o	As of 7:00PM on March 30, approximately 4,697 tons of water in total has been shot to the spent fuel storage pool.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor*
    o	At 2:04PM on March 30, TEPCO began to  shoot water aimed at the spent fuel pool, with a specialized vehicle  normally used for pumping concrete.
o	As of 7:00PM on March 30, approximately 960 tons of water in total has been shot to the spent fuel storage pool.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Unit 5 reactor*
    o	At 2:00PM on March 30, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 99.0 degrees Fahrenheit.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Unit 6 reactor*
    o	At 2:00PM on March 30, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 79.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
*•	Fukushima Daiichi Common Spent Fuel Pool*
    o	At 8:30AM on March 29, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
o	As of 7:00PM on March 30, approximately 130 tons of water in total has been injected to the spent fuel storage pool.
    Our official sources are:
•	Office of The Prime Minister of Japan
•	Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA)
•	Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Press Releases
•	Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)


----------



## IFocus (2 April 2011)

I have been wondering why there has been no news of robots being used 


Robots fail a nation when needed the most 



> WASHINGTON: Inside a nondescript warehouse south of Mannheim, Germany, a dozen robots, ranging in size from a low-slung inspection bot no bigger than a toy wagon to a 22-tonne Caterpillar excavator, stand ready to respond to a nuclear emergency.
> 
> With their electronics hardened to withstand radiation, the versatile machines can handle fuel rods as well as monitor doses that would kill a human engineer. A similar robotic quick-response squad is housed near the Chinon nuclear power plant in France.
> 
> In Japan, where the Fukushima nuclear crisis is three weeks old, the question is: Where are the robots?






http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...tion-when-needed-the-most-20110401-1cro0.html


----------



## DB008 (2 April 2011)

Agentm said:


> *•Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor*
> o At 1:00PM on March 30, water level inside the reactor core: *1.6 meters below the top of the fuel rods.*
> 
> *•Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor*
> ...




*Scary!*


----------



## tothemax6 (2 April 2011)

Are those reactors _still _bubbling away? Jeez, if there was any nation in the world I would expect to have their act together it would be the Japs. Disappointing. 

But besides, there is something inherently dangerous about a reactor design in which "if you do not keep it cool, it will naturally melt into a big blob of radioactive goo". Tut tut, engineers.


----------



## tothemax6 (2 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> In view of the consequences of such an event, those odds are still disturbingly high.
> 
> We're talking about a massive impact on the environment and human life here. It's not as though it's something comparatively trivial like a cruise ship sinking, oil spill or collapse of a city building.
> 
> The odds may well be low, but the consequences are huge and that's the problem.



Well the thing is that no one seems prepared _at all_ for nuclear events. Its kind of like having a city with no fire service. Its unbelievably poor. There should be proper crack teams with appropriate equipment to do everything from sealing a station, to rapidly cooling and containing an obstreperous core, to mapping and cleaning up released contamination in a rapid manner. I fail to see how companies can even go ahead and build nuclear stations with out having these teams - they would simply not get insurance and the station would constitute too great a compensation risk if it broke.


----------



## Glen48 (3 April 2011)

This will start the global down turn with Japan having to sell USD, OEM not being able to get supplies from the 3rd largest economy.
3 reactors melting like cheese in a pizza oven not power for years, cars sale in Japan down 37% 

 Get out your guns, hide your PM's (not Gillard ) stock up on food, medicine and buy books on fixing everything for dummies besacue ever one will be at home trying to survive.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> But besides, there is something inherently dangerous about a reactor design in which "if you do not keep it cool, it will naturally melt into a big blob of radioactive goo". Tut tut, engineers.



That's a bit like saying we shouldn't have petrol that can sustain combustion by itself due to the possibility of a tanker accident. As with the nuclear reaction, once it's burning - it's burning and we're stuck with the consequences.

If we don't want these sorts of hazards with uranium then there's really only one solution - don't use it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Well the thing is that no one seems prepared _at all_ for nuclear events. Its kind of like having a city with no fire service. Its unbelievably poor. There should be proper crack teams with appropriate equipment to do everything from sealing a station, to rapidly cooling and containing an obstreperous core, to mapping and cleaning up released contamination in a rapid manner. I fail to see how companies can even go ahead and build nuclear stations with out having these teams - they would simply not get insurance and the station would constitute too great a compensation risk if it broke.



Agreed in principle. But nuclear power is already hugely expensive and if there were actually these sorts of precautions then it would never be viable to use nuclear power in the first place.

Such is the problem. Either we do it sort-of cheaply and take these sorts of risks, or we can't do it at all. Personally, I'd rather some other form of power production but that's just me.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2011)

Somthing that isn't getting any real attention is that amongst electrical infrastructure, it is not only the Fukushima nuclear power plant that has been damaged. There is also significant damage to coal-fired power stations as well.

Thankfully, damage to a coal plant just means a power shortage and some repairs to make. No huge exclusion zone, no radioactive fish, no need for any real concern as long as you aren't literally standing next any damaged structures at the plants themselves. You get my point...

http://www.electricalworld.com.au/onestory.php?idNum=1705


----------



## skc (3 April 2011)

China Syndrome was the term used on the 3 mile island incidend (or the movie anyway) - that the melt down will keep going until it comes out the other end of the world in China.

However, having consulted the world map, Japan's melt down will come out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean... so she will be right, mate.


----------



## burglar (8 April 2011)

"U.S. Stocks recently rolled over in response to reports that Japan has been hit by another earthquake, but the major averages have begun to rebound with news that the integrity of nuclear facilities has not been compromised by the latest quake."


----------



## Sean K (8 April 2011)

burglar said:


> "U.S. Stocks recently rolled over in response to reports that Japan has been hit by another earthquake, but the major averages have begun to rebound with news that the integrity of nuclear facilities has not been compromised by the latest quake."



7.1

Will depend on how deep and loc for the effect.

Must be another 'aftershock'. 

Or, these are all pre shocks until the big one.


----------



## skc (8 April 2011)

kennas said:


> 7.1
> 
> Will depend on how deep and loc for the effect.
> 
> ...




Only reports of minor damages and injuries so doesn't sound that bad.

There's a prediction that Mt Fuji is due for a blow. That would put a huge dent on the collective national psyche / confidence of Japan.

Until Gozilla comes out and sacrifices himself to save everyone of course.


----------



## adobee (12 April 2011)

Nuclear disaster now on par with Chernobyl April 12, 2011 - 11:37AM

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nuclear-disaster-now-on-par-with-chernobyl-20110412-1dbpa.html


----------



## adobee (12 April 2011)

here is the INES - The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale
definetly worth a review

http://www-news.iaea.org/news/whatsnew/ines.pdf


----------



## Agentm (13 April 2011)

*Fukushima rated at INES Level 7 – what does this mean?*

  				 Posted on 12 April 2011 by Barry Brook				
  				  					Hot in the news is that the Fukushima Nuclear crisis has been upgraded from INES 5 to INES 7. Note that this is _not _due  to some sudden escalation of events today (aftershocks etc.), but  rather it is based on an assessment of the cumulative magnitude of the  events that have occurred at the site over the past month (my most  recent update on that is here).
 Below I look briefly at what this INES 7 rating means, why it has  happened, and to provide a new place to centralise comments on this  noteworthy piece of news.



 The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) was developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to rate nuclear accidents. It was formalised in 1990  and then back-dated to events like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island,  Windscale and so on. Prior to today, only Chernobyl had been rated at  the maximum level of the scale ‘major accident’. A useful 5-page PDF  summary description of the INES, by the IAEA, is available here.​ A new assessment of Fukushima Daiichi has  put this event at INES 7, upgraded from earlier escalating ratings of 3,  4 and then 5. The original intention of the scale was  historical/retrospective, and it was not really designed to track  real-time crises, so until the accident is fully resolved, any  time-specific rating is naturally preliminary.​ The criteria used to rate against the INES scale are (from the IAEA documentation):​ (i) *People and the Environment:*  considers the radiation doses to people close to the location of the  event and the widespread, unplanned release of radioactive material from  an installation.
 (ii) *Radiological Barriers and Control*:  covers events  without any direct impact on people or the  environment  and only applies inside major facilities. It covers unplanned high  radiation levels and spread of significant quantities of  radioactive materials confined within the installation.
 (iii) *Defence-in-Depth*:  covers events without any direct impact on people or the environment,  but for which the range of measures put in place to prevent accidents  did not function as intended.
 In terms of severity:
Like the scales that describe earthquakes or major  storms, each of the INES scale’s seven levels is designed to be ten  times more severe that the one before. After below-scale ‘deviations’  with no safety significance, there are three levels of ‘incident’, then  four levels of ‘accident’. The selection of a level for a given event is  based on three parameters: whether people or the environment have been  affected; whether any of the barriers to the release of radiation have  been lost; and whether any of the layers of safety systems are lost.​




	

		
			
		

		
	
So,  on this definitional basis, one might argue that the collective  Fukushima Daiichi event (core damage in three units, hydrogen  explosions, problems with drying spent fuel ponds, etc.) is ~100 times  worse than TMI-2, which was a Level 5.
 However, what about when you hit the top of the INES? Does a rating of 7 mean that Fukushima is _as bad_  as Chernobyl? Well, since you can’t get higher than 7 on the scale,  it’s impossible to use this numerically to answer such a question on the  basis of their categorical INES rating alone. It just tells you that  both events are in the ‘major league’. There is simply no event rating  8, or 10, or whatever, or indeed any capacity within the INES system to  rank or discriminate events _within_ categories (this is especially telling for 7). For that, you need to look for other diagnostics.
 So headlines like_ ‘Fukushima is now on a par with Chernobyl_‘ can be classified as semantically correct and yet also (potentially) downright misleading. Still, it sells newspapers.
There is a really useful summary of the actual ‘news’ of this INES upgrade from _World Nuclear News_, here. It reports:​ Japanese authorities notified the  International Atomic Energy Agency of their decision to up the rating:  “As a result of re-evaluation, total amount of discharged iodine-131 is  estimated at 1.3Ã—1017 becquerels, and caesium-137 is estimated at 6.1Ã—1015  becquerels. Hence the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has  concluded that the rating of the accident would be equivalent of Level  7.”​ More here from the IAEA:​ The new provisional rating considers the accidents that  occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES. Previously,  separate INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3. The  provisional INES Level 3 rating assigned for Unit 4 still applies.
 The re-evaluation of the Fukushima Daiichi provisional INES rating  resulted from an estimate of the total amount of radioactivity released  to the environment from the nuclear plant. NISA estimates that the  amount of radioactive material released to the atmosphere is  approximately 10 percent of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the  only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event.​ I also discussed the uprating today on radio, and you can listen to the 12-minute interview here for my extended perspective.​ So, what are some of the similarities and differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl?​ Both have involved breeches of radiological  barriers and controls, overwhelming of defence-in-depth measures, and  large-scale release of radioactive isotopes into the environment. The  causes and sequence of the two events were, however, very different, in  terms of reactor designs, the nature of the triggering events, and  time-scale for resolution ”” this is a topic to be explored in more depth  in some future post. The obviously *big *contrast is in the human toll and nature of the radioactive release.​ The Chernobyl event killed 28 people  directly via the initial explosion or severe radiation sickness, and  other ~15 died as directly attributed result of radiation-induced cancer  (see the summary provided today by Ben Heard on _Opinion Online_: Giving Green the red light). Further,  Chernobyl led to a significant overexposure of members of the public in  the local area and region, especially due to iodine-131 that was  dispersed by the reactor fire, and insufficient protection measures by  authorities. An increase in thyroid cancers resulted from this.​ In Fukushima, by contrast, no workers have  been killed by radiation (or explosions), and indeed none have been  exposed to doses >250 mSv (with a ~1000 mSv being the dose required  for people to exhibit signs of radiation sickness, through to about 50 %  of victims dying after being exposed to >5000 mSv [see chart here]).  No member of the public has, as yet, been overexposed at Fukushima.  Further, much of the radionuclides released into the environment around  Fukushima have been a result of water leakages that were flushed into  the ocean, rather than attached to carbon and other aerosols from a  burning reactor moderator, where they were largely deposited on land,  and had the potential to be inhaled (as occurred in Chernobyl).​ So is Fukushima another Chernobyl? No. Is  it a serious accident? Yes. Two quite different questions ”” and answers ””  which should not be carelessly conflated.​


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 May 2011)

Today's update...



> Japan began evacuating people from outside the official exclusion zone around the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant after it was revealed fuel rods there probably melted hours after March's devastating earthquake.
> 
> With radiation levels remaining high, small children and pregnant women were the first to be moved, *with thousands more to be shifted into shelters and temporary housing.*






> After the plant's operator, TEPCO, told the Japanese people that things were stabilising at Fukushima, it is now clear they knew far less about the situation than they were willing to admit.
> 
> About 8,000 Litate residents and those in the nearby village of Kawamata are being asked to move, joining the tens of thousands who have already been forced out of their homes by the nuclear crisis.
> 
> ...




My sentiments regarding this disastrous shambles too.... 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/16/3217488.htm


----------



## Glen48 (16 May 2011)

I saw were 1 worker from Fookedshma power plant die assume from to many X rays.


----------



## jbocker (31 May 2011)

Not sure of the best thread to post this but since the decision by the Germans was triggered on the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster...

*Germany pulls plug on nuclear power*
By Georg Ismar, Berlin
May 31, 2011

GERMANY has announced plans to become the first major industrialised power to shut down all its nuclear plants, with the last to be closed by 2022.

...

The decision means Germany will have to find the 22 per cent of its electricity needs covered by nuclear reactors from another source.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/germany-pulls-plug-on-nuclear-power-20110530-1fcrx.html#ixzz1NqkKQE1U


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 May 2011)

jbocker said:


> Not sure of the best thread to post this but since the decision by the Germans was triggered on the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster...
> 
> *Germany pulls plug on nuclear power*
> By Georg Ismar, Berlin
> ...




Since they are soooo keen on bailing out the sinking S.S. Euro, mebbe they could re-employ all those unfortunate unemployed Portugese, Irish, Greek & Spanish to pedal 10,000,000 stationary bicycles fitted with dynamos, 24/7?


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

jbocker said:


> Not sure of the best thread to post this but since the decision by the Germans was triggered on the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster...
> 
> *Germany pulls plug on nuclear power*
> By Georg Ismar, Berlin
> ...





The political problem is Germans have blinked, I understand the old stations being closed but not the newer.  

Still if they cannot replace the megawatts with renewable power then it wont happen but in a way its good news in as much the Huns are really good at technology development and this could be a motivation to make it happen.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 May 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Today's update...



If this were any other type of power plant (coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, wood, whatever...) then this would have been over long ago.

The "odds" of something going wrong may be small, but the consequences when they do are so large and that's the inherent problem with nuclear power. You can never reduce the chances of an accident to zero - sooner or later it's going to happen and we've got no effective response when it does.


----------



## spooly74 (1 June 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> If this were any other type of power plant (coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, wood, whatever...) then this would have been over long ago.




Granted, but this isn't a zero sum game.



> The "odds" of something going wrong may be small, but the consequences when they do are so large and that's the inherent problem with nuclear power.




How should we quantify the consequences? 
Loss of life, exclusion zones, cost etc.
You could argue that conventional plants have a far greater kill rate without the major inconvenience of cost and relocation should something go wrong.



> You can never reduce the chances of an accident to zero - sooner or later it's going to happen and we've got no effective response when it does.




The same applies to other forms of power generation. 
Take the Banqiao Dam failure in China during the 70's where over 150,000 people died and 11 million people relocated. If nuclear plant killed that many it would be the last plant to do so. No doubt about it.

Also, the response at Fukushima, imo, under worst case scenario was outstanding, and continues.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 June 2011)

spooly74 said:


> You could argue that conventional plants have a far greater kill rate without the major inconvenience of cost and relocation should something go wrong.



It would be hard to argue with that point. Coal kills rather a lot of people, but there is no realistic scenario where it causes the permanent abandonment of anything other than the mine itself.

It's like investing. It's not generally wise to place yourself in a situation where a single event unfolding causes a total loss of your capital. And yet that's comparable to the situation with nuclear power. One major incident causes a catastrophic loss - that risk doesn't really exist with coal.

All that said, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that closing down the world's nuclear power industry is not an option.


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 June 2011)

Ooopsies..... 



> *Tokyo Electric Power Co. fell to a record low after reports that radiation levels surged at its crippled Fukushima plant and the president of Japan’s largest stock exchange said the utility should be liquidated.*
> 
> The owner of the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant plunged as much as 28 percent to 206 yen, the most since the utility known as Tepco starting trading in 1974. The stock traded 24 percent lower at 218 yen at 11 a.m. in Tokyo and was the biggest decliner in the Topix Electric Power & Gas Index .
> 
> ...



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-06/tepco-slumps-to-record-low-on-radiation-spike.html

Highest radiation readings to date? Sounds a bit ominous...


----------



## spooly74 (6 June 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ooopsies.....
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-06/tepco-slumps-to-record-low-on-radiation-spike.html
> 
> Highest radiation readings to date? Sounds a bit ominous...




Only if you're planning on going in there to have your lunch  for now.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/04_16.html



> TEPCO said it found that steam was rising from a crevice in the floor, and that extremely high radiation of 3,000 to 4,000 millisieverts per hour was measured around the area. The radiation is believed to be the highest detected in the air at the plant.
> 
> TEPCO says the steam is likely coming from water at a temperature of 50 degrees Celsius that has accumulated in the basement of the reactor building.
> 
> The company sees no major impact from the radiation so far on ongoing work, as it has been detected only within a limited section of the building




Radiation chart


----------



## DB008 (6 June 2011)

This is a great one to watch.



> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13598607
> 
> Japan pensioners volunteer to tackle nuclear crisis
> 
> ...



More on the link above and there is a video at the start of the page.


(I asked myself, if this situation happened here, would retired engineers do the same, probably not. Culture difference, 100:1)


----------



## tothemax6 (6 June 2011)

DB008 said:


> This is a great one to watch.
> More on the link above and there is a video at the start of the page.
> (I asked myself, if this situation happened here, would retired engineers do the same, probably not. Culture difference, 100:1)



Yeah I was amazed by their sense of duty - they just did what a man was supposed to do in that situation.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2011)

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/fukushima-its-much-worse-than-you-think/

If this article is even half correct then this is one almighty disaster.

In short, an actual melt through has supposedly occurred and there's no known means of dealing with it. The "impossible" has, it seems, actually happened. 

There's risk in everything that is true. But no other single human activity has the potential for harm on this scale for such a long period. Nothing else even comes close.


----------



## Glen48 (18 June 2011)

Sounds to me like Japan will be a waste land for eons maybe they should get on a boat and move to OZ and start again.
 Think the population is 80 M was the 3rd largest economy in the World.
 If China goes to war we will have some troops to defend OZ.


----------



## Glen48 (18 June 2011)

Japan and  USA 


http://bl158w.blu158.mail.live.com/...baca6-9955-11e0-93e9-002264c19764&n=543124912


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 June 2011)

> Analysts are also forecasting price hikes for Japan’s electricity, according to Nikkei News. With the continued shortage of nuclear power, *the cost of electricity could climb by up to 18 percent in the next fiscal year*, according to research from Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics.



http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/bus...-burdened-by-electricity-shortages-58332.html

I'm surprised they are only forecasting +18% price rise. However, I note they didn't mention anything about the following year(s) of presumed rises as well! 

Should all bode very well for their moribund economy.

Party on.....


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 September 2011)

It may no longer be grabbing the headlines, but let's not forget that this disaster is ongoing and will be for a long time yet. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/world/asia/22japan.html?_r=2

Much as I'm keen on all things electrical, I maintain my view that the fission of uranium (conventional nuclear power) is too high a price to pay in order to keep the lights on. Had this been a coal, oil, gas or hydro plant then Japan wouldn't be faced with many of the problems it has today.

It comes back to consequences. No matter how "safe" these plants are supposed to be, the consequenes in the event of an accident are catastrophic to say the least. It's like betting everything you own on a "sure thing" then finding out it's not so sure after all. The loss may be unlikely, but it's a disaster when it comes.


----------

