New posts

Reply to thread

Message

””””””””””””””””””-
[ATTACH=full]79478[/ATTACH]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.

<blockquote data-quote="Agentm" data-source="post: 619928" data-attributes="member: 5119">””””””””””””””””””-&nbsp;[ATTACH=full]79478[/ATTACH]Fukushima: it’s not about radiation, it’s about tsunamis&nbsp;A lot of wrong lessons are being pushed on us, about the tragedy now&nbsp;&nbsp; unfolding in Japan.&nbsp; All the scare-talk about radiation is irrelevant.&nbsp; &nbsp; There will be no radiation public health catastrophe, regardless of how&nbsp;&nbsp; much reactor melting may occur.&nbsp;&nbsp; Radiation? Yes.&nbsp; Catastrophe? No.&nbsp;Life evolved on, and adapted to, a much more radioactive&nbsp; planet,&nbsp; Our&nbsp; current natural radiation levels””worldwide””are below&nbsp; optimum.&nbsp;&nbsp; Statements that there is no safe level of radiation are an&nbsp; affront to&nbsp; science and to common sense.&nbsp; The radiation situation should&nbsp; be no&nbsp; worse than from the Three Mile Island (TMI) incident, where ten to&nbsp;&nbsp; twenty tons of the nuclear reactor melted down, slumped to the bottom&nbsp;&nbsp; of the reactor vessel, and initiated the dreaded China Syndrome, where&nbsp;&nbsp; the reactor core melts and burns its way into the earth.&nbsp; On the&nbsp;&nbsp; computers and movie screens of people who make a living “predicting”&nbsp;&nbsp; disasters,&nbsp; TMI is an unprecedented catastrophe.&nbsp; In the real world, the&nbsp;&nbsp; molten mass froze when it hit the colder reactor vessel, and stopped&nbsp;&nbsp; its downward journey at five-eights of an inch through the five-inch&nbsp;&nbsp; thick vessel wall.&nbsp;And there was no harm to people or the environment.&nbsp; None.&nbsp;Yet in Japan, you have radiation zealots threatening to order people&nbsp;&nbsp; out of their homes, to wander, homeless and panic-stricken,&nbsp; through the&nbsp;&nbsp; battered countryside, to do what? All to avoid a radiation dose lower&nbsp;&nbsp; than what they would get from a ski trip.&nbsp;The important point for nuclear power is that some of the nuclear&nbsp;&nbsp; plants were swept with a wall of seawater that may have instantly&nbsp;&nbsp; converted a multi-billion dollar asset into a multi-billion dollar&nbsp;&nbsp; problem.&nbsp; That’s bad news.&nbsp; But it’s not unique to nuclear power.&nbsp; If&nbsp; &nbsp; Fukushima were a computer chip factory, would we consider abandoning the&nbsp;&nbsp; electronic industry because it was not tsunami-proof?&nbsp; It would be&nbsp;&nbsp; ironic if American nuclear power were phased out as unsafe, without&nbsp;&nbsp; having ever killed or injured a single member of the public, to be&nbsp;&nbsp; replaced by coal, gas and oil, proven killers of tens of thousands each&nbsp;&nbsp; year.&nbsp;Moreover, the extent and nature of the damage from seawater may be&nbsp;&nbsp; less than first implied.&nbsp; Rod Adams, a former nuclear submarine officer,&nbsp;&nbsp; who operated a nuclear power plant at sea for many years, says that&nbsp;&nbsp; inadvertent flooding of certain equipment with seawater was not&nbsp;&nbsp; uncommon.&nbsp; He includes electronics-laden missile tubes.&nbsp; “We flushed&nbsp;&nbsp; them out with fresh water,” he said.&nbsp; “Sometimes we had to replace&nbsp;&nbsp; insulation and other parts.&nbsp; But we could ultimately bring them back on&nbsp;&nbsp; line, working satisfactorily.”&nbsp;The lessons from Japan involve tsunamis, not radiation.&nbsp;””””””””””””””–&nbsp;Footnote – Some additional comments from Ted Rockwell, by email correspondence:&nbsp;I must admit that our&nbsp; Science articles did&nbsp; not give much&nbsp;&nbsp; attention attention to the&nbsp; small-volume containment&nbsp; plants, and we&nbsp;&nbsp; should do so after the information&nbsp; on Fukushima has&nbsp; come in.&nbsp; Our&nbsp;&nbsp; focus was on getting past the proving&nbsp; that&nbsp; scenarios that led to&nbsp;&nbsp; intolerable situations were tolerably improbable.&nbsp; &nbsp; This traditional&nbsp;&nbsp; approach is an essential but not sufficient&nbsp; part of&nbsp; plant design.&nbsp;My approach was to come in from the&nbsp; other side:&nbsp; To&nbsp; assume that the&nbsp;&nbsp; worst situation was one that&nbsp; led to some molten fuel,&nbsp; coupled with&nbsp;&nbsp; loss of containment&nbsp; integrity, and ask: what then? Does&nbsp; radioactivity&nbsp;&nbsp; get out in great&nbsp; enough quantities, into enough lungs? That’s&nbsp; &nbsp; essentially the TMI&nbsp; situation, and I concluded that it led to the TMI&nbsp; &nbsp; outcome: a&nbsp; disaster for the plant owner, but a wholly tolerable&nbsp;&nbsp; situation&nbsp;&nbsp; radiologically.&nbsp; We’re going to have to go back and apply a&nbsp; &nbsp; wider range&nbsp; of conditions to that analysis.&nbsp;But&nbsp; radiation must still be&nbsp; treated like any other variable, and&nbsp; not&nbsp;&nbsp; the ultimate injury.&nbsp; It&nbsp; should not outrank death by&nbsp; inhalation&nbsp; of&nbsp; coal particles, for&nbsp; example. The&nbsp; obsessive fascination with&nbsp; radiation&nbsp; as&nbsp; the worst possible danger leads to&nbsp; mass evacuation as the&nbsp; most&nbsp;&nbsp; conservative response.&nbsp; I don’t know any&nbsp; experienced disaster&nbsp;&nbsp; manager&nbsp; who agrees that mass evacuation is always a&nbsp; conservative&nbsp;&nbsp; response.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Agentm, post: 619928, member: 5119"] ””””””””””””””””””- [B][ATTACH=full]79478[/ATTACH]Fukushima: it’s not about radiation, it’s about tsunamis[/B] 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. ””””””””””””””– [B]Footnote[/B] – Some additional comments from Ted Rockwell, by email correspondence: I must admit that our [I]Science [/I]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. [/QUOTE]

Verification