Merged 8.8 quake in Sendai, Japan

[jayh]

The design change to implement is that the backup generators need about 50 feet of elevation.

There would have been zero problems if that were the case here.

Locating plants inland should protect them from tsnumis

 

[William Parcher]

Jesus...

I wonder if any of those cars or boats had people in them.

At 0:35 you can briefly see cars driving on a roadway. I suspect they will be engulfed within a few seconds.

 

[William Parcher]

I have yet to see a current helicopter shot of the coast side of the Fukushima power station. There's a frequently shown before shot, but I think helicopters are being kept away from the area now.
Admittedly, most helicopters will be required for rescue work, rather than satisfying the curiosity of viewers, but it would be interesting to see what the water damage is like east of the reactors.

So what you are seeking isn't here showing the before/after of the station?

Fukushima nuclear plant

 

[BenBurch]

Ironic if that was not done for social / psychological reasons.

It was not done because 45 years ago when this plant was designed nobody had though that a Tsunami would flood the generators where they were installed.

Also, some stupidity here and elsewhere to address (not referring to the post I am replying to);

What we are seeing now is NOT a disaster.

We have a disaster all around it; tens of thousands of people are dead. Thousands trapped and dying. Refineries and chemical plants exploding. Toxic spills everywhere.

The worst this could become is a radiological hazard in a very local area.

These plants have succeeded in being well-designed enough to limit the scope of the hazard.

Containment has not been breeched.

It is not going to be breeched.

What they are really worried about is how expensive a mess is this going to be to clean up, and have moved from trying to save the plant as a plant to trying to limit the cleanup.

There is not any possibility at all of this becoming a general calamity.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, that's true, but how dangerous is that? Are you taking into account exposure time? Do you realize that we get exposed to radiation all the time from a variety of sources?

None of these are things the media is talking about, because it wouldn't keep people on the edge of their seats.

ETA: Please take some time to read up on the science behind radiation sources, exposure & poisoning, folks (start here and here). Once you get a little informed, you will quickly see how the media is hyping the hell out of all this.

The amount of radiation you get if you have a x ray for a broken arm can be terryfying if you just look at the numbers compared to normal levels of radiation.

 

[BenBurch]

Locating plants inland should protect them from tsnumis

Not needed. And the sea is a good heat sink. More reliable than a cooling tower and more reliable than a very long pipe to the sea.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Locating plants inland should protect them from tsnumis

And place them farther away from an ideal place to put their condensers for cooling.

EDIT: Ben just said essentially the same thing.

 

[dudalb]

The CBC National News (the main network, 10 p.m. version) wasn't any better. In a report they had, the reporter interviewed someone the reporter described as an 'anti-nuclear activist.' I couldn't but help immediately wonder what that person's qualifications were to comment upon what was happening. Why that person was selected over a nuclear physicist or nuclear engineer or someone of that sort?

And the AMerican networks are no better. I really wonder how the hell they pick some of the "experts" they interview.
I have never understood why they go to advocacy groups so fast. Even if they have people from both sides, you often don't get accurate information, you just get two eqaully distorted views.

 

[dudalb]

I don't get that. Why are people even concerned about animals, here ???

It's the cute factor. And sad fact is some people do seem to have more empathy for animals then human beings. PETA, I am looking at you......

 

[BenBurch]

And the AMerican networks are no better. I really wonder how the hell they pick some of the "experts" they interview.
I have never understood why they go to advocacy groups so fast. Even if they have people from both sides, you often don't get accurate information, you just get two eqaully distorted views.

Easy;

We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry

 

[BeAChooser]

A standard risk analysis would have told anyone that the risk of a tsunami knocking out the backup generators in the event of a quake was quite real, and easily avoidable.

Have you any proof they didn't take into consideration the threat of tsunami? And we don't know at this point precisely what knocked out the backup generators. Sometimes unexpected events can lead to failures. There is no way to make anything 100% certain, at least not economically. We just aren't that good yet.

There is also the consideration that more modern designs don't even need a backup generator, and will shutdown without needing any intervention or continued cooling. These nuclear plants are all of a very early design from the 1960's. Nuclear technology has moved on considerably since then.

This is certainly true and is a point that needs to be made over and over to the public in order to counter what the environmental wackos are now saying in an attempt to prevent a nuclear renaissance.

 

[Lucian]

And the AMerican networks are no better. I really wonder how the hell they pick some of the "experts" they interview.
I have never understood why they go to advocacy groups so fast. Even if they have people from both sides, you often don't get accurate information, you just get two eqaully distorted views.

I think this article from America's finest news source helps explain the networks' criteria for choosing "experts."

 

[Travis]

It's a proven fact people watch the news more when they are scared. You don't think the networks know that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know what you mean but I think at the same time it is understandable that people will sympathise with an animal that they can see is as good as dead (as with that cat). Even hearing that ten thousand people were killed in a tsunami doesn't register as much as visceral evidence like that.

That cat looks alive and well to me. Cats can swim, the water in the image was slow, not rushing. There is likely food waste it could eat in the rubble and rain is coming so fresh water will also be available in little pockets it the cat can find it. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the cat will not survive.

Why do people care? Human empathy includes empathy for animals. Not everyone feels it, culture has an impact as well as individual experience. I don't have an issue with empathy for a sad looking kitty. I would have an issue if someone diverted a rescue team to get the cat before all the human survivors had been found unless they happened to be next to the cat anyway.

 

[a_unique_person]

The design change to implement is that the backup generators need about 50 feet of elevation.

There would have been zero problems if that were the case here.

A trivial change in terms of ensuring the integrity of the plants. After the Indonesia tsunami, the risks would have been apparent to anyone working with the plant, including management. The only reason it would not have been fixed would have been a relatively minor cost.

 

[Soapy Sam]

So what you are seeking isn't here showing the before/after of the station?

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

It does show the effects of the water / debris flow on the coastal side.
Assuming the actual water went a good distance beyond the strand line as seen from that height, I don't think we need ask further why the diesels failed.

It was not done because 45 years ago when this plant was designed nobody had though that a Tsunami would flood the generators where they were installed.

Ben - I take that as read. It occurred that power stations- nuclear or not- may be sited to minimise 3 things - cost, hazard and "visual impact". It would be a sad irony if it was environmental lobbying that prevented the plant site being built higher.
Incidentally, I'm getting my info on boiling water reactors from people like yourself, Kittynh's old man and others who seem to know what they are talking about. With all it's faults, JREF is pretty good for that. What I find sad is to see on Sky News a consultant who does know his stuff being ignored or deliberately urged to make emotive worst case assessments- which he was stoically refusing to do.

 

[bookitty]

That cat looks alive and well to me. Cats can swim, the water in the image was slow, not rushing. There is likely food waste it could eat in the rubble and rain is coming so fresh water will also be available in little pockets it the cat can find it. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the cat will not survive.

Why do people care? Human empathy includes empathy for animals. Not everyone feels it, culture has an impact as well as individual experience. I don't have an issue with empathy for a sad looking kitty. I would have an issue if someone diverted a rescue team to get the cat before all the human survivors had been found unless they happened to be next to the cat anyway.

In the midst of so much death, even the smallest life becomes precious. The frustration of not having the resources to save every creature affects us. Humans will get priority during rescue operations and there is nothing wrong with that. Left behind will be companion animals who are unable to comprehend why their world has suddenly become a nightmare. A terrified cat speaks for all of those.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Me, too. (~330, IIRC) .

I was a bit surprised when I got to the bottom of the page and learned that the calculator estimated my exposure as about half that of normal, but I don't think it is supposed to be all that precise an instrument, anyway.

My exposure was high this year, two 7 hour flights, a full chest CT scan with 1 mm slices, a mammogram with follow up views because they saw something on the screening views (low dose digital and the follow up was negative), multiple hand Xrays in an arthritis work up, extra dental Xrays for a tooth extraction and a foot Xray for a broken toe. It bothers me, I'm conscious of the medical risks, but what can you do when you need the Xrays for medical benefits?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the midst of so much death, even the smallest life becomes precious. The frustration of not having the resources to save every creature affects us. Humans will get priority during rescue operations and there is nothing wrong with that. Left behind will be companion animals who are unable to comprehend why their world has suddenly become a nightmare. A terrified cat speaks for all of those.

The way pets were handled in the Katrina flooding was wrong. I can understand not being able to take them in the initial rescues. But people were prevented from later returning to get their animals at their own expense. Yes, looting may have needed public resources to prevent if people were let into flooded areas, but that could have been managed as well. It was poorly handled.

 

[23_Tauri]

Before and after photographs. Slide central bar to see the extent of the devastation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html