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

[VFM Addict]

There are some morons out there, aren't there. Even Chernobyl was far from an "apocalypse".

Apocalypse is such an emotive word really. But then again aren't all such terms abstract and relate only to the perceptions of those that survive. A car crash killing a whole family is every bit as apocalyptic for those passengers as a nuclear blast would be and every bit as devastating for other close family members who survive.

In essence for those that don't survive any tragedy the nature of tragedy is utterly immaterial, is it not?

 

[Cosimo]

There are some morons out there, aren't there. Even Chernobyl was far from an "apocalypse".

I see the morons French are retreating again:

Radio France to withdraw staff reporting on Japan quake

PARIS, March 15, Kyodo

Radio France decided Tuesday to pull out staff dispatched to cover the major earthquake in Japan, following a series of accidents at a Japanese nuclear power plant, a public relations official told Kyodo News.

The state-run radio station has sent a total of seven reporters and technical staffers to report on last week's quake and tsunami, and accidents at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The decision to withdraw the staff was made given the seriousness of the accidents at the nuclear power plant, the official said.

The pullout will leave one correspondent based in Japan for the French radio station. If the correspondent decides to leave Japan, support will be offered in arranging return travel, according to the official.

==Kyodo

More noobs afraid of the impending apocalypse.

 

[-Ad-]

There are some morons out there, aren't there. Even Chernobyl was far from an "apocalypse".

Quite!

Not surprising coming from the EU Energy Minister:

QUIK, ve must Instal Winden Turbines everyver!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[drunkenmaster]

You guys should read this article, it is pretty much telling the truth with no scaremongering
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/15/fukushima_update_tuesday/
According to Flat Earth News, By Nick Davies there were only 56 deaths that are officially caused by Chernobyl and not the thousands that everyone thinks.
From the article it debunks another of the scaremongering

Actually, he's almost entirely wrong throughout. Firstly as someone else pointed out there were 56 deaths, within days/first couple weeks of the people who were directly there when it happened and right after. Apparently many more of the firemen and people have died which is unsurprising, if they die of horrible cancer 6 months, a year, or 20 years later it doesn't get counted.

Supposedly the liquidators, the guys who were scrubbing up radiation across the three countries and also literally shovelling stuff in off the Chernobyl building back into the reactor, 600k of them, 60k have apparently died since, almost exclusively of cancer, another 145 or 165k(i forget which) are apparently disabled now, I didn't follow the link but I assume some with cerebral damage as is a symptom of radiation poisoning and others losing limbs through cancer etc, etc. 50 is the naive "pro nuclear" heads in the sand number, a million would be the Greenpeace number by now if their leader hadn't turned pro nuclear since the big CO2 coal/oil power plant issue he's gone after.

The reality is somewhere inbetween, considering the liquidators numbers, and the increase in certain types of cancer in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, its probably quite a way north of 100k and rising with more with signficant disability due to it.


As for his take on the problems, he says the danger of full meltdown has passed, rubbish, that 1% power output isn't a big deal and should be dealt with, wrong, that 8217microSv was the highest radiation level and has since dropped, he published that today at 12.15pm GMT, Japan confirmed readings on site as high as 400milliSv which is 400,000 microSv around 9-10am THEIR time iirc, which is some 11-12 hours before he published the article.

Everyone claims their article puts paid to all the other idiots out there, by saying lots of stupid things.

Most people, me included, don't know a heck of a lot on the subject, its the people making bold proclaimations who tend to be the MOST wrong though.

 

[RomanNose]

Actually, he's almost entirely wrong throughout. Firstly as someone else pointed out there were 56 deaths, within days/first couple weeks of the people who were directly there when it happened and right after. Apparently many more of the firemen and people have died which is unsurprising, if they die of horrible cancer 6 months, a year, or 20 years later it doesn't get counted.

Supposedly the liquidators, the guys who were scrubbing up radiation across the three countries and also literally shovelling stuff in off the Chernobyl building back into the reactor, 600k of them, 60k have apparently died since, almost exclusively of cancer, another 145 or 165k(i forget which) are apparently disabled now, I didn't follow the link but I assume some with cerebral damage as is a symptom of radiation poisoning and others losing limbs through cancer etc, etc. 50 is the naive "pro nuclear" heads in the sand number, a million would be the Greenpeace number by now if their leader hadn't turned pro nuclear since the big CO2 coal/oil power plant issue he's gone after.

The reality is somewhere inbetween, considering the liquidators numbers, and the increase in certain types of cancer in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, its probably quite a way north of 100k and rising with more with signficant disability due to it.


As for his take on the problems, he says the danger of full meltdown has passed, rubbish, that 1% power output isn't a big deal and should be dealt with, wrong, that 8217microSv was the highest radiation level and has since dropped, he published that today at 12.15pm GMT, Japan confirmed readings on site as high as 400milliSv which is 400,000 microSv around 9-10am THEIR time iirc, which is some 11-12 hours before he published the article.

Everyone claims their article puts paid to all the other idiots out there, by saying lots of stupid things.

Most people, me included, don't know a heck of a lot on the subject, its the people making bold proclaimations who tend to be the MOST wrong though.

I was merely stating that the official figures are only 56, most people still think the official figures are much higher than that.
Anyhow, are you sure that those incredibly high readings are not just temporary because of the short half lives?
I am hardly qualified but that website has seemed more credible than any other media outlets.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I would not personally rule out the chance of a tradegy of Chernobyl like proportions with the absolute that some people have.

I really don't get the stance that "but it has a big building over it so it can't ever be a Chernobyl", because its wrong. It won't spew out stuff like Chernobyl IF the containment building doesn't leak, if it does, theres every chance it could end up as bad it could end up worse.

Chernobyl, but for 3 guys wading in the dark into the pool under the reactor to empty it, would have been massively worse than it was. If the molten core material had seeped into that chamber underneath with millions(not really sure how much) of litres of water it would have turned into a massive massive amount of heavily radioactive steam being sent into the atmosphere for a long time.

Here should the core melt through and hit the suppression chamber water(if theres any in there) or the should be in there massive amount of water at the bottom of the containment building if theres already a leak in the containment building thats very bad, if there isn't the steam will produce a lot of pressure on an containment building that at this stage has been through a heck of a lot.

yes, it should, even if full melt down, just drop to the bottom of the containment building and thats pretty much it........ it COULD, with a very slim possibility, do a heck of a lot worse.

There are some morons out there, aren't there. Even Chernobyl was far from an "apocalypse".

I swore I'd seen that statement earlier and seen it listed without the "nuclear" bit, as in he was saying he felt for the Japanese as its like an apocalypse over there. If thats what he said, well I understand, earthquake, Tsunami, fire, potential meltdowns, if thats not apocalyptic seeming I don't know what is.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I was merely stating that the official figures are only 56, most people still think the official figures are much higher than that.
Anyhow, are you sure that those incredibly high readings are not just temporary because of the short half lives?
I am hardly qualified but that website has seemed more credible than any other media outlets.

It doesn't really matter why, it wasn't 400millSv around the building before, then it was, if its a massive increase in the amount of short lived, or worse radiation the massive increase is the worrying part. The fact he missed a VERY widely reported number and claimed it had gone down when infact it had gone up over 50 times is just wrong.

THe official numbers are just the official numbers, create a long time ago, theres a truth in the middle somewhere, the "official" number is by far and away the least accurate account of the accident.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Here should the core melt through and hit the suppression chamber water(if theres any in there) or the should be in there massive amount of water at the bottom of the containment building if theres already a leak in the containment building thats very bad, if there isn't the steam will produce a lot of pressure on an containment building that at this stage has been through a heck of a lot.

I would have thought that the supression tank is torus shaped to avoid that very reason, the hole in the centre? Also the Control Rod Drive Mechanisms are at the base of this BWR so you need the space for those which displaces any volume the tank could occupy.

 

[Rroff]

I really don't get the stance that "but it has a big building over it so it can't ever be a Chernobyl", because its wrong. It won't spew out stuff like Chernobyl IF the containment building doesn't leak, if it does, theres every chance it could end up as bad it could end up worse.

Chernobyl, but for 3 guys wading in the dark into the pool under the reactor to empty it, would have been massively worse than it was. If the molten core material had seeped into that chamber underneath with millions(not really sure how much) of litres of water it would have turned into a massive massive amount of heavily radioactive steam being sent into the atmosphere for a long time.

Here should the core melt through and hit the suppression chamber water(if theres any in there) or the should be in there massive amount of water at the bottom of the containment building if theres already a leak in the containment building thats very bad, if there isn't the steam will produce a lot of pressure on an containment building that at this stage has been through a heck of a lot.

yes, it should, even if full melt down, just drop to the bottom of the containment building and thats pretty much it........ it COULD, with a very slim possibility, do a heck of a lot worse.



I swore I'd seen that statement earlier and seen it listed without the "nuclear" bit, as in he was saying he felt for the Japanese as its like an apocalypse over there. If thats what he said, well I understand, earthquake, Tsunami, fire, potential meltdowns, if thats not apocalyptic seeming I don't know what is.

Thing is under standard operating conditions or even planned disaster conditions things should go exactly like some of these people are saying, the problem is they seem to be ignoring the incredible amount of energy involved in the earthquake and the potential damage it could have done to the infrastructure, especially hidden stress/fatigue that might become an issue later.

 

[Evilsod]

They were shut down on Friday.

As said above they were automatically shut down as soon as the earthquake hit, but it is not like a car, they still produce heat that needs cooling. As far as I'm aware the reactors were wrecked when they pumped sea water through them.

I know, was a bit badly phrased. I mean just looking at solutions that stop the reaction as fast as possible without worrying about the cost through damage to the fuel/reactors. As far as i'm aware they've been holding back in some regards... or maybe i'm reading things the wrong way.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I would have thought that the supression tank is torus shaped to avoid that very reason, the hole in the centre? Also the Control Rod Drive Mechanisms are at the base of this BWR so you need the space for those which displaces any volume the tank could occupy.

I'm really not sure because the diagrams seen suggest there isn't water at the bottom, I've seen other reactor diagrams that suggest other designs do, and the guy on here whose name I forget who knows his stuff suggested there should be a pool of water at the bottom.

The melted fuel at Chernobyl burned through the concrete, or started to and Chernobyl, a old and unsafe design, had a water chamber underneath to to to cool and prevent any getting into the water table.

Maybe there is another chamber underneath the general diagrams we've seen that works like that, I'm not quite sure.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Thing is under standard operating conditions or even planned disaster conditions things should go exactly like some of these people are saying, the problem is they seem to be ignoring the incredible amount of energy involved in the earthquake and the potential damage it could have done to the infrastructure, especially hidden stress/fatigue that might become an issue later.

Even without that I just wouldn't be absolutely certain everything would work as it should, I think the risk is increased now, significantly, but a significant increase to a tiny chance is still pretty damn small, just not insignificant as so many people seem to be suggesting.

 

[Rroff]

Just a revision on my earlier numbers:

Containment facilities at Fukushima #1 are designed against a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 not 0.125 as I stated before (my mistake), the measured PGA from the original quake has now been revised at over 0.5g - its a small miracle tbh that the plant facilities are even still standing - the hardened construction of the power plants are probably naturally resistant to higher levels than that, as are many buildings even without earthquake tolerance planned in so they won't literally collapse the moment it exceeds that level but does give some idea of just how much force was involved in that quake.

 

[PlacidCasual]

Just to be clear the death statistics that drunkenmaster is poo pooing are 56 dead directly and 4000 from exposure were collated by the a group composing of the following IAEA, FAO, UN-OCHA, UNDP, UNEP, UNSCEAR, WHO, and the World Bank.

International Atomic Energy Authority
Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN)
UN Office for the Co-Ordination of Humanitarian Affairs
UN Development Programme
UN Environment Programme
UN Scientific Committiee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
World Health Organisation
World Bank

Whilst I could probably find things about all of them I dislike they have a certain gravitas and I assume access to genuine World class expertise. Not to be lightly ignored.
That said contrarian opinions to theirs may also be valid.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

http://www.educatedearth.net/story.php?id=1701

Apparently the water in the spent fuel pools in Reactors 5 and 6 has reached boiling point, and the water is starting to evaporate off, I assume they are unable to replace the water as they're using whatever pumping systems they have on pumping seawater into the reactors that are threatening meltdown.

These poor guys are having no luck. Any operator still on site trying to handle the situation deserves the utmost respect in my opinion.

 

[Tefal]

There are some morons out there, aren't there. Even Chernobyl was far from an "apocalypse".

tbh I'd be saying that's grounds for immediate dismissal from such a post.


It's a statement pretty much geared solely towards causing panic and not something a minister of that level should be saying.

 

[Energize]

Why has no emergency equipment been brought in by sea or air?

 

[Rroff]

Looks like steadily rising trend on Geiger counters around the tokyo area still a very long way from even midly concerning levels but rising above normal none the less (may just be a brief spike from earlier events).

 

[Cosimo]

http://www.educatedearth.net/story.php?id=1701

Apparently the water in the spent fuel pools in Reactors 5 and 6 has reached boiling point, and the water is starting to evaporate off, I assume they are unable to replace the water as they're using whatever pumping systems they have on pumping seawater into the reactors that are threatening meltdown.

These poor guys are having no luck. Any operator still on site trying to handle the situation deserves the utmost respect in my opinion.

That was being reported much earlier in the day and the operator said water in a pool storing spent nuclear fuel rods "may" be boiling.

 

[physichull]

Has anyone read how they are getting water into the spent fuel pool in reactor 4? Theres a story on one of the main Japanese channels (a while before that announcement) that they were considering using choppers to dump water on top of the building but were weighing up the potential risk to the chopper and people in it?

For the people that know, just how radioactive is spent fuel vs the rods inside the core, what kinds of things will it be chucking out, and secondly, surely worried about the people in the chopper and being able to just dump water in there means the containment building is open at the top and the rods are essentially exposed to the outside now?

Spent fuel is stonkingly hot. It is composed mostly of the U (and Pu) which the majority is not radioactive. Unspent U fuel is actually not very radioactive at all, you can hold an unspent Magnox fuel rod in your hand quite happily. In fact, in the pictures you see, operators only wear the gloves to protect the fuel before it is clad. The minority component of spent fuel contributes the most to doses, the fission products etc Cs137, I131, to name but a few.

I think the water from the helicopter was to do with putting water back into the spent fuel ponds. Now I can't comment with an certainty on this particular case, as I don't know for sure, but I believe there are many existing spent fuel ponds that are open-air. There have been many news articles about "dirty 30" at Sellafield. I don't know for sure what it stored, but it was open-air. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_thirty_(Sellafield)#Decommissioning

Then again, I read somewhere (I forget where) that the fire was possibly due to an oil leak??

I would have thought that the supression tank is torus shaped to avoid that very reason, the hole in the centre? Also the Control Rod Drive Mechanisms are at the base of this BWR so you need the space for those which displaces any volume the tank could occupy.

For every BWR the control rod drive mechanism is below the RPV. Usually the superheaters and driers are at the top that prevents mavity driven control rod mechanisms.