Earthquake in Japan....9.0...ouch!

physichull said:
I really don't think this will be the case at all. The RPV is well shielded and it is unlikely there will be anyone in that close a proximity anyway. The diesels themselves are away from the Reactor in a separate building. This is done in the case of an aircraft impact so that all the key services aren't located in the same building, it spreads/disperses the risk.
Click to expand...

Yet we know that venting gas had radiation exposure, ceasium has supposedly been detected and the problem isn't necessarily with the generator, if they can't get the generator cooled to slow down any issues they might have to find alternative ways to cool the reactor and being in and around the site with the reactor, which may or may not be partially damaged(which the suggestion of Ceasium detection suggests is more than possible) then its a simply dangerous area to be in.

Yes if the problem is ONLY with the generators and theres no leaks or pressure venting in the second building, and they don't have to go anywhere near the main reactor the risk is reduced but not 100% safe by any means, as suggested by supposedly 3 people being exposed already.
 
Combat squirrel said:
Very true, its part of the price humanity pays for progress however and one I think we should all take, harnising natures greatest powers was never going to be an easy feat.
Click to expand...

This is the one thing I have against Nuclear fuel, we have risks in every day life we put up with because risk vs reward is worth it. Planes are worthwhile but people still die in crashes, thats life, the problem with Nuclear fuel is we also prepare for problems but, when theres a catastrophic failure the potential risk is so severe, and really we just can't account for nature and predict where will be safe to build.

At the end of the day, a normal power plant blows, meh, Nuclear has problems and many people are effected, for decade, children of those effected end up with problems, its a generational problem that can be caused, not localised or short term.

But then what other options do we have, no clue.

The way to minimise risk I guess would be to make every nuclear plant tiny, with very limited amount of fuel(i'm sure it is already) but it would make it prohibitively costly. But then if a reactor did melt down, well, theres a lot less radiation that can get out, but then you don't have enough real power production. Its a bit of a mess really, and is it any worse than normal risks anyway, Tsunami's, earthquakes, tornado's, etc, etc.
 
If you think the Pearl Harbour comment was stupid read this

i,ve been reading up the american government or the evil money men have been threatening to cause earthquakes on the rim of fire because the east asians have been trying to colapse the fed to have a currency which does not profit feeds the ...poor and they want to release suppressed technology for the better of humanity but the few greedy men who dont want to let go of the power and release us from man made debt and slavery are causing earthquakes and droughts and all sorts of chaos globaly using H.A.R.R.P please read up on HARRP and the picture becomes crystal clear remember though
they have plans to enslave the whole of humanity by what ever means and they dont care about the destuction because the only want 1 billion people on this planet so they need to cull 5.6 billion
people do you research accept nothing the media .newspapers or anything rupert murdock spews out has he is part of the secret society
that controls and brainwashes you
Click to expand...

Seriously, what the f.

What the hell goes through some peoples heads :rolleyes:
 
Somewhere in all that stupid conspiricy theory shenanigans there is some truth there must me.

Something must be true somewhere.


NOT to do with the earthquake but i dont doubt that there are people who WOULD try do such things if they were capable no doubt.
 
To dm if they just built the power plants in areas of low environmental catastrophe then there is little issue. Japan for example is a terrible site for them, Whereas the UK is a great site due to our stability and low chance of earthquake and tsunami.
 
drunkenmaster said:
This is the one thing I have against Nuclear fuel, we have risks in every day life we put up with because risk vs reward is worth it. Planes are worthwhile but people still die in crashes, thats life, the problem with Nuclear fuel is we also prepare for problems but, when theres a catastrophic failure the potential risk is so severe, and really we just can't account for nature and predict where will be safe to build.

At the end of the day, a normal power plant blows, meh, Nuclear has problems and many people are effected, for decade, children of those effected end up with problems, its a generational problem that can be caused, not localised or short term.

But then what other options do we have, no clue.

The way to minimise risk I guess would be to make every nuclear plant tiny, with very limited amount of fuel(i'm sure it is already) but it would make it prohibitively costly. But then if a reactor did melt down, well, theres a lot less radiation that can get out, but then you don't have enough real power production. Its a bit of a mess really, and is it any worse than normal risks anyway, Tsunami's, earthquakes, tornado's, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
If we manage to crack fusion, it will be a different story :).
There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
 
drunkenmaster said:
Yet we know that venting gas had radiation exposure, ceasium has supposedly been detected and the problem isn't necessarily with the generator, if they can't get the generator cooled to slow down any issues they might have to find alternative ways to cool the reactor and being in and around the site with the reactor, which may or may not be partially damaged(which the suggestion of Ceasium detection suggests is more than possible) then its a simply dangerous area to be in.
Click to expand...

There will always be Cs-137 present in every nuclear plant, contamination spreads. This plant has been operating for 30 years or so and you would expect there to be a little contamination within the plant. It is very likely that the explosion has made a bit of this airborne, but in the quantities we are talking about it is next to nothing. Again I will stress that the radiation limits are really really tight, so even very small amounts can push you over the limit.

Besides, authorities are now saying levels are reducing and the temperatures in the reactor are falling again. This is to be expected, the decay heat becomes less of a problem over the course of a few days as the nasty short-lived isotopes decay away.
 
The Running Man said:
To dm if they just built the power plants in areas of low environmental catastrophe then there is little issue. Japan for example is a terrible site for them, Whereas the UK is a great site due to our stability and low chance of earthquake and tsunami.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, crap happens basically, you can't really plan for safety features not working and thats essentially what happened here. Ok the generator maybe stopped working because it got damaged in the earthquake or the Tsunami, or maybe it just didn't work, and the electrical grid going down meant they'd shut it down and have faced a very similar issue.

Its possible the earthquake itself is relatively irrelevant to the problem here.

The problem is you can plan to avoid the worst but at the end of the day, what happens when the worst DOES happen, in the UK a nuclear plant going critical would be devestating, if the wind was wrong and blew all the crap over London we'd have devestating effects long term if not short term.

Thats the problem, risk vs reward is one thing, but you also have to factor in, if everything does go wrong just how bad can it get, on that scale there has to be a line where its just, no, too stupid to do it.

But I also agree that Japan is maybe the daftest place to do it considering the near constant earthquakes, but these are old plants and maybe at this stage should have been being shut down and replaced with newer safer designs. Likewise afaik the companies running the plants in Japan have been done for hiding their horrific safety record and lieing about problems. If thats what led up to the faulty generator, cheapness or covering up problems, then those people shouldn't have still been in charge.

The info on the company looks like its accurate and not fast made up BS in the past day, but you maybe its rubbish, don't know.
 
Just been told there is a rumour going round that the Creator of Pokemon died in the quake.

:(

Hope its just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Nope told by a friend who has come over, she doesn't use twitter or Facebook.

NVM though seems its BS. What's wrong with some people.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
The problem is you can plan to avoid the worst but at the end of the day, what happens when the worst DOES happen, in the UK a nuclear plant going critical would be devestating, if the wind was wrong and blew all the crap over London we'd have devestating effects long term if not short term.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power stations are meant to go critical! That's how they work! It's when they go super-critical that you have to worry, i.e. K(effective)>1.

K(effective)=1 loosely means that the fission process is constant and that the neutron production rate matches the leakage/absorption rate. It's when this number goes above 1 in that there are more fissions taking place that you have to worry as the temperature would increase.

Generally though, reactors go sub- and super-critical by small amounts but these are controll with boronated water adjustments etc.
 
drunkenmaster said:
The way to minimise risk I guess would be to make every nuclear plant tiny, with very limited amount of fuel(i'm sure it is already) but it would make it prohibitively costly. But then if a reactor did melt down, well, theres a lot less radiation that can get out, but then you don't have enough real power production. Its a bit of a mess really, and is it any worse than normal risks anyway, Tsunami's, earthquakes, tornado's, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
 
drunkenmaster said:
This is the one thing I have against Nuclear fuel, we have risks in every day life we put up with because risk vs reward is worth it. Planes are worthwhile but people still die in crashes, thats life, the problem with Nuclear fuel is we also prepare for problems but, when theres a catastrophic failure the potential risk is so severe, and really we just can't account for nature and predict where will be safe to build.

At the end of the day, a normal power plant blows, meh, Nuclear has problems and many people are effected, for decade, children of those effected end up with problems, its a generational problem that can be caused, not localised or short term.

But then what other options do we have, no clue.

The way to minimise risk I guess would be to make every nuclear plant tiny, with very limited amount of fuel(i'm sure it is already) but it would make it prohibitively costly. But then if a reactor did melt down, well, theres a lot less radiation that can get out, but then you don't have enough real power production. Its a bit of a mess really, and is it any worse than normal risks anyway, Tsunami's, earthquakes, tornado's, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

The real problem is human nature... lack of investment in a 40+ year old design, dragging feet to update the system due to the costs... etc. afaik the more modern designs shutdown flawlessly - obviously theres always the chance that something will/can go wrong but the real problem is the human element (pun sort of intended).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom