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

[Jonnycoupe]

. How do you know their budget wasn't cut years ago - and they never even had a rapid resonse team to shut off the systems in time (with all the news statements a lie so far ) ?

Its a good point in terms of budget, however the recent extension of reactor 1 for another 10 years I'd like to hope had a thorough safety case for lifetime extension.

Any emergency mitigation would be primarily in the control systems and redundant systems. Specialist equipment could have been available to move between plants but the Tsunami has serious effect the local area. Anything still servicable would be miles away and the roads are block/destroyed. Really is a worst case situation isnt it

 

[JHeaton]

Does anyone know what a nGy/h actually is and when it gets dangerous?

I would advise seeking advice from someone who knows more, but what I can find is as follows:

nGy = nanogray
nGy/h = nanograys per hour

1nGy is apparently a billionth of 1Gy; a sustained dosage of around 5Gy is lethal, but even 1Gy can cause you to become quite seriously ill with lasting effects. An exposure of 500 or so nGy/h shouldn't be serious, as far as I can tell, although it may be above normal levels.

 

[DreXeL]

'cept 4 out of 6 at Fukushima 1 have failed to various degrees.

After taking an earthquake massively larger than they were designed to take, then being hit by a 40ft tsunami it's amazing they are still standing at all.....

Yeah, I'd say it's some impressive engineering.

 

[NiCkNaMe]

What makes me laugh is the constant blinkered adoration of nuclear energy by most people on this board.

I understand it is essential, I understand that we need it for the moment given we have a pending energy shortfall with current sources, however to blindly defend it is naive.

We've had a major disaster in Chernobyl, other lesser so disasters elsewhere and then this in Japan. Saying 'oh it would have survived the earthquake'... 'the tsunami was unforseen' isn't enough! Try telling that to the people that may possibly be affected by the coming days fallout.

It doesn't matter how safe nuclear energy can be - we need to be realistic. Corner's are always going to be cut in business. We need to be sure it's safe. We need to criminalise cost cutting in business with technologies like this that can have such severe consequences. Not just at a national level, we need to have worldwide acceptance.

We need a comprehensive review of the current situation worldwide in any case (that can not be bad) and hopefully some new found investment and worldwide support for alternative energy.

 

[FreeStream]

'cept 4 out of 6 at Fukushima 1 have failed to various degrees.

Note I said structural design, not systems design. Structurally the reactors have withstood a 9.0 earthquake instead of the 7.9 they were designed for and (someone else will post how much more energy that is), they survived a Tsunami which has essentially wiped out most of the surrounding coastlines as well as do what (apparently) they are designed to do when there is an explosion inside the outer containment building.

Plus No. 2 has taken the explosion of 1 & 3 before hand.

So 3/3 for structures IMO.

However this is all based on stuff that could be wrong as there is a lot of things flying around out there which may or may not be correct!

Interesting read here too:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qEuWntnoZzYC&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Redrum]

Quickly?

I don't have real time data so it's difficult to say. The prefecture government office uploads readings every hour or so, but when the big jump happened, they didn't upload any for over 2 hours - I guess they were deciding whether to publish or not. Like I say, 1 of them has gone up to 14x normal, the others are only 1.5 times normal, but the highest one is enough to cause radiation sickness according to the information Raikiki posted so I guess I need to start thinking about fleeing the area

Thanks for the advice people.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

All I could find on it.

I have limited experience in nuclear health and safety, although this is what we work to in the H&S industry..

http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/doses/dose-pr.htm

Guidance

5. Notifications should recognise the need to apply ALARP to intervention, and not treat disapplication of the dose limits under regulation 15 as a general amnesty on the need to control doses up to the notified dose levels for emergencies.

6. The notified dose levels should be appropriate and justified in relation to the Operator's or Carrier's Hazard Identification and Risk Evaluation (regulations 4-6). The figures given below are intended as upper values, and lower values (above the dose limits) should be sought where reasonable. Emergency dose levels should not be seen by Operators or Carriers as a panacea to deal with accidents, and hence evidence should also be sought that further reductions in the proposed levels through planning and preparation are not reasonably practicable.

7. Subject to the above, emergency dose levels up to those listed below should normally be regarded as acceptable to HSE

8. Specific provision may be made explicitly for life saving. In this case it should be recognised that regulation 14(7) may disapply regulations 14(2), 14(3) and 14(4). However, it is desirable that for planning purposes the objective should normally be to apply the following levels:

Whole Body Dose:
500 mGy

Dose to Skin:
5000 mGy

These figures are expressed in milligray not millisievert as the appropriate dose quantity in relation to deterministic effects. Caution should be applied in conversion from one to the other.

Actions which carry a significant risk of the above benchmarks being substantially exceeded should only be taken when the likely benefits in terms of life saving clearly outweigh the risks to those carrying

 

[Participant]

Sorry if it is reading like that but we already have enough conjecture so why did you open with some.

What? It wasn't conjecture, I was asking a question with the hope of improving my understanding. It's you that seems to be indulging in conjecture, for instance telling everyone that U238 increases during enrichment and that U236 is not formed during nuclear fission.

And yes you are right I made a typo on that one 235 is the enriched element as natural is 238.

You didn't make a typo, you just didn't know.

Just for clarity I have works on Rolls Royce Submarine nuclear steam raising plant design, particularly the RPV however these are Naval spec PWRs rather than BWR so im not uber familiar with the commerical install - if that makes me a 'smart-arse' so be it.

No, it makes you a failed smart-arse, which is much worse. Normally you expect 'you know nothing' type comments from people that then go on to add value by explaining someone's mistakes. Instead you chose to ask why I even had the audacity to post the query I did, but followed it up with such gems as U238 is enriched U235 and U236 is not created during fission.

You have also claim to have professional experience of the nuclear industry yet still haven't grasped the very basics of nuclear fission, which is both embarassing and concerning. Unless you clean the toilets on the sub or something?

it at no point forms 236

Except it does....?

I think you should consider your own advice tbh:

Dont take this the wrong way...

but why have you even replied with a post like that?

 

[NiCkNaMe]

After taking an earthquake massively larger than they were designed to take, then being hit by a 40ft Tsunami. It's amazing they are still standing at all.....

Are Tsunami's a new found phenomena?

To me it seems quite an easy thought that if an earthquake was to occur in any vicinity to the island then a Tsunami was not to hard to accept?

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

They had thought about it but they hadn't anticipated the sheer size of the wall of water?

 

[Raikiri]

I have limited experience in nuclear health and safety, although this is what we work to in the H&S industry..

I assumed he meant mGy, if it was nGy then there's not really anything to worry about.

 

[DreXeL]

Are Tsunami's a new found phenomena?

To me it seems quite an easy thought that if an earthquake was to occur in any vicinity to the island then a Tsunami was not to hard to accept?

I guess they were designed to take the kind of tsunami that a 7.9 would cause.

 

[mrbios]

What makes me laugh is the constant blinkered adoration of nuclear energy by most people on this board.

I understand it is essential, I understand that we need it for the moment given we have a pending energy shortfall with current sources, however to blindly defend it is naive.

We've had a major disaster in Chernobyl, other lesser so disasters elsewhere and then this in Japan. Saying 'oh it would have survived the earthquake'... 'the tsunami was unforseen' isn't enough! Try telling that to the people that may possibly be affected by the coming days fallout.

It doesn't matter how safe nuclear energy can be - we need to be realistic. Corner's are always going to be cut in business. We need to be sure it's safe. We need to criminalise cost cutting in business with technologies like this that can have such severe consequences. Not just at a national level, we need to have worldwide acceptance.

We need a comprehensive review of the current situation worldwide in any case (that can not be bad) and hopefully some new found investment and worldwide support for alternative energy.

Three disasters above a level 4 in 40 years (unless there are any i don't know about), one of which was due to adopting safty polcies that the rest of the world wouldn't have accepted at the time anyway (chernobyl) this one which was a disaster caused by natural causes from a plant built 40 years ago. (i don't know anything about three mile island to comment)

Saftey precautions taken in this day and age would be far beyond that of 30-40 years ago which is when most of them were built, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. You're the one that seems pretty blinkered.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I assumed he meant mGy, if it was nGy then there's not really anything to worry about.

My mistake. Thread moving so quickly I must have mistaken the m for the n.

Useful to know, I suppose

 

[Jonnycoupe]

You have also claim to have professional experience of the nuclear industry yet still haven't grasped the very basics of nuclear fission, which is both embarassing and concerning. Unless you clean the toilets on the sub or something?

Wow, calm down Robbie. Do you think the suspension guru on cars can perfectly describe flame front proporgation inside a modern direct injection car? This is not the thread for this. I aplogise if I have upset you. It been nearly a year since I worked in the nuclear industry.

I remember 236 highlighted as its only around 20% of Uranium 235 that forms 236 but that is not a fission reaction that assist the power production hence it is not considered as the definition of a nuclear fissile reaction: that is the actually splitting of 235. 236 is a long lasting isotope that is current considered nuclear waste.

 

[Firestar_3x]

What makes me laugh is the constant blinkered adoration of nuclear energy by most people on this board.

I understand it is essential, I understand that we need it for the moment given we have a pending energy shortfall with current sources, however to blindly defend it is naive.

We've had a major disaster in Chernobyl, other lesser so disasters elsewhere and then this in Japan. Saying 'oh it would have survived the earthquake'... 'the tsunami was unforseen' isn't enough! Try telling that to the people that may possibly be affected by the coming days fallout.

It doesn't matter how safe nuclear energy can be - we need to be realistic. Corner's are always going to be cut in business. We need to be sure it's safe. We need to criminalise cost cutting in business with technologies like this that can have such severe consequences. Not just at a national level, we need to have worldwide acceptance.

We need a comprehensive review of the current situation worldwide in any case (that can not be bad) and hopefully some new found investment and worldwide support for alternative energy.

If you had any idea what goes into the design, verification and building of a plant then you will know what you've typed above is rubbish. But can be understood on some level as the general public will never have any idea on the process's in place.

You can't make ANY system 100% redundant, you design something to survive a particular event, you spend money based on the frequency and likelihood of that event happening, you can't keep pouring money into a black hole, because A. nothing would ever get built and B. no-one could afford to design and build it.

Accidents happen, you can't mitigate against every single eventuality, the design and safety systems on a nuclear build is mindblowing, the general public have no idea.

It's all about benefit vs accepted risk, but much like a plane crash when things go badly wrong they usually kill 'lots' of people in one go.

 

[FreeStream]

What makes me laugh is the constant blinkered adoration of nuclear energy by most people on this board.

I understand it is essential, I understand that we need it for the moment given we have a pending energy shortfall with current sources, however to blindly defend it is naive.

We've had a major disaster in Chernobyl, other lesser so disasters elsewhere and then this in Japan. Saying 'oh it would have survived the earthquake'... 'the tsunami was unforseen' isn't enough! Try telling that to the people that may possibly be affected by the coming days fallout.

It doesn't matter how safe nuclear energy can be - we need to be realistic. Corner's are always going to be cut in business. We need to be sure it's safe. We need to criminalise cost cutting in business with technologies like this that can have such severe consequences. Not just at a national level, we need to have worldwide acceptance.

We need a comprehensive review of the current situation worldwide in any case (that can not be bad) and hopefully some new found investment and worldwide support for alternative energy.

Don't fly on aircraft then if your too scared of the risks. The reserve factors used in aerospace are tiny compared to what they use in civil and i'd imagine tiny when compared to nuclear construction.

PLUS the fact these reactors are 40+ year old designs, reactors being built now are far far far far far more advanced and all this event has done is give more information to the engineers to what happens at big earthquakes and they then can design in more safety.

Absolutely no reason for this 'OMGZ Nuclear is bad man' attitude.

Are Tsunami's a new found phenomena?

To me it seems quite an easy thought that if an earthquake was to occur in any vicinity to the island then a Tsunami was not to hard to accept?

The wave was 10 metres high, you would essentially need a 20+m barrier to stop something like that, COMPLETELY impractical.

They have taken account of it, but to what degree is impossible to say as there is no documentation on the design aspects of the plant.

They will learn from this and place the backup generators somewhere else/in a more Tsunami proof building.

 

[NiCkNaMe]

Three disasters above a level 4 in 40 years (unless there are any i don't know about), one of which was due to adopting safty polcies that the rest of the world wouldn't have accepted at the time anyway (chernobyl) this one which was a disaster caused by natural causes from a plant built 40 years ago. (i don't know anything about three mile island to comment)

Saftey precautions taken in this day and age would be far beyond that of 30-40 years ago which is when most of them were built, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. You're the one that seems pretty blinkered.

If you had any idea what goes into the design, verification and building of a plant then you will know what you've typed above is rubbish. But can be understood on some level as the general public will never have any idea on the process's in place.

You can't make ANY system 100% redundant, you design something to survive a particular event, you spend money based on the frequency and likelihood of that event happening, you can't keep pouring money into a black hole, because A. nothing would ever get built and B. no-one could afford to design and build it.

Accidents happen, you can't mitigate against every single eventuality, the design and safety systems on a nuclear build is mindblowing, the general public have no idea.

I know you can't make ANY system 100% redundant, I spend all day attempting to design resiliant MS solutions

HOWEVER! We've invested too much in a tech that has fairly serious consequences if it goes wrong, be it accidental, be it natural diaster, be it intentional.

I don't need to know anything about Nuclear, all I need to know is it's currently causing massive potential health issues for a vast number of people. Maybe I just need educating/brainwashing/bombozzling with tech information to convince me that even when another one fails in the future, it's ok because they've thought about every possible thing that could happen, except the one that just make my back collapse

Granted, I'm being facetious - and people will just have to accept we've made our path towards Nuclear energy and need to stick with it if we want to continue responding to posts on a message board.

 

[Participant]

I remember 236 highlighted as its only around 20% of Uranium 235 that forms 236 but that is not a fission reaction that assist the power production hence it is not considered as the definition of a nuclear fissile reaction: that is the actually splitting of 235. 236 is a long lasting isotope that is current considered nuclear waste.

Wrong again. It not only assists the controlled fission reaction, it is necessary for it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#The_fission_chain_reaction

It's not that you are wrong, it's that you said this...

Dont take this the wrong way...

but why have you even replied with a post like that? The first paragraph is a farce why not just start the post with the second one.

and then were wrong.

I am not upset, I just like shooting people down that get above their station. However I accept your less than humble apology, despite your silly excuses about when and where you last worked in the industry and the fact that rather than say nothing or ask a question where you knew nothing, you chose to churn out an almighty load of guff.

It been nearly a year since I worked in the nuclear industry

I am left wondering why this could be .

 

[Prime]

I guess they were designed to take the kind of tsunami that a 7.9 would cause.

From NHK report yesterday, the plant was built for tsunamis based on a worse case scenario stretching as far back as 186x. This quake exceeded that and then some and sent a tsunami bigger than ever modelled. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Just as people are complaining that people are assuming the "best" too much on little information, people are also assuming the worse on little information.


As for the nuclear debate, i think you'll find those in favour of nuclear are actually in favour of both nuclear (fission) running in conjunction with renewables. Both until another form of energy is found or renewables have advances far enough to eventually replace nuclear fission.

This is not the stance of the anti-nuclear group who would have nuclear and fossil fuel plants closed now and switching completely to renewables, almost overnight. Which doesn't take into consideration the shortage of power currently and will be.

Both sides have huge lobbies spreading propaganda around, there is very little in the way of a complete breakdown of true costs, minus subsidies with clear risks/rewards.