Merged 8.8 quake in Sendai, Japan

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please point out where I have "denied" anything that happened at Chernobyl.

And, for the record, comparing the current situation to Chernobyl is just plain ignorant. Do you even realize that the two reactors involved - Chernobyl and Fukushima - are of fundamentally different designs (which makes a huge difference)?

That's not how I meant, "cannot deny Chernobyl". I just meant it is not complete woo to have concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants.

 

[BenBurch]

For the umpteenth time, this is not another Chernobyl.

And indeed cannot even POSSIBLY be. I could open up the containment like a pistachio and crush the reactor vessel, and though you would have a mess, it could never, ever approach the scale of Chernobyl.

And the reason is graphite.

Chernobyl was a very large graphite-moderated reactor. Graphite BURNS. And there was a fire. The fire took irradiated material from the moderator and allowed it to travel the globe.

The core? Most of it (that wasn't carried off by the fire) is still in the plant. I've seen video of it. It melted because the carbon moderator was damaged by the steam explosion that initiated the failure, and the control rods could not be inserted.

In the current case, this reactor has been sub-critical since the earthquake.

Every minute that goes by, it has less short half-life material to make heat.

It will not burn if exposed to air.

The dangers are that it can still make hydrogen, and hydrogen is a chemical explosive. We've seen that problem already.

It can also make steam, and steam pressure can cause an explosion.

If not kept cool, it can melt the fuel elements and make a huge mess to clean up in the bottom of the containment, or if I DID split the containment like a pistachio shell, in about the top 20 feet of soil UNDER the containment.

That would be a first class mess and you'd need to build coffer dams and keep the groundwater pumped out, and you'd have a lot of low-level waste to deal with and it would cost millions and millions.

So it needs to be kept cool.

Hence the seawater flooding.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, I do know that my policy specifically excludes floods. But I am 75 feet above the nearby stream, so I don't think I am in much danger.

But....but....but....in the US, "you have to have flood coverage". How can you not?

 

[BenBurch]

But....but....but....in the US, "you have to have flood coverage". How can you not?

Well, I would have to have it to be covered.

 

[Myriad]

But....but....but....in the US, "you have to have flood coverage". How can you not?

Read in the original context, it appears obvious to me that that meant "you have to have [specific] flood coverage [not just regular property insurance] [for insurance companies to be liable for your tsunami losses]."

Which is completely accurate, in my understanding as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Are you dense? Do you realize that as soon as the earthquake hit the Fukushima reactor was shut down?

I swear, if I keep reading posts like this, I'm going to facepalm myself into unconsciousness...

Please point out where I have "denied" anything that happened at Chernobyl.

And, for the record, comparing the current situation to Chernobyl is just plain ignorant. Do you even realize that the two reactors involved - Chernobyl and Fukushima - are of fundamentally different designs (which makes a huge difference)?

For the umpteenth time, this is not another Chernobyl.

Shutting down a nuclear pile isn't like turning off a light. The shutdown process was started after the quake, but after that it takes days for any nuclear pile to completely shut down. Try reading this article and get your facts straight: Nuclear energy 101: Inside the "black box" of power plants

And indeed cannot even POSSIBLY be. I could open up the containment like a pistachio and crush the reactor vessel, and though you would have a mess, it could never, ever approach the scale of Chernobyl.

And the reason is graphite.

Chernobyl was a very large graphite-moderated reactor. Graphite BURNS. And there was a fire. The fire took irradiated material from the moderator and allowed it to travel the globe.

The core? Most of it (that wasn't carried off by the fire) is still in the plant. I've seen video of it. It melted because the carbon moderator was damaged by the steam explosion that initiated the failure, and the control rods could not be inserted.

In the current case, this reactor has been sub-critical since the earthquake.

Every minute that goes by, it has less short half-life material to make heat.

It will not burn if exposed to air.

The dangers are that it can still make hydrogen, and hydrogen is a chemical explosive. We've seen that problem already.

It can also make steam, and steam pressure can cause an explosion.

If not kept cool, it can melt the fuel elements and make a huge mess to clean up in the bottom of the containment, or if I DID split the containment like a pistachio shell, in about the top 20 feet of soil UNDER the containment.

That would be a first class mess and you'd need to build coffer dams and keep the groundwater pumped out, and you'd have a lot of low-level waste to deal with and it would cost millions and millions.

So it needs to be kept cool.

Hence the seawater flooding.

Evelyn Mervine (Kittynh's spawn) posted 2 great interviews with her dad on her blog (http://georneys.blogspot.com/). Another great resource, in addition to those in this thread who actually know the topic, like you two and Hindmost.

Part I: http://i4.simkl.com/AuF/N4/d079ba76c70ebd02df8945cbbb8587f4.mp3

Part IIa: http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/4c8s2l8vbm

Part IIb: http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/1ces0vwj54

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Read in the original context, it appears obvious to me that that meant "you have to have [specific] flood coverage [not just regular property insurance] [for insurance companies to be liable for your tsunami losses]."

Which is completely accurate, in my understanding as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Debatable. Given some other responses, I suspect not.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Roads and rails are impassable. There aren't nearly enough helicopters.

I wish the U.S. (or anyone's) military could pull a few thousand of those Normandy-invasion landing barges out of the past. Load them up with bottled water, food, and medical supplies, and send them in all along that coastline. Irony be damned.

Respectfully,
Myriad

From what I understand, there are two U.S. carrier groups currently off the coast of Japan assisting with rescue & recovery efforts. And yes, they are doing all they can to provide food, water, medicine, etc.

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's not how I meant, "cannot deny Chernobyl". I just meant it is not complete woo to have concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants.

I can assure you that those of us here who actually know something about nuclear physics & engineering are not saying such concerns are complete woo. "Concern" does not, however, translate into hysteria - you are arguing a false dichotomy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I would have to have it to be covered.

Which is what I said, but apparently someone (not you) missed the context.

I wonder how the insurance industry handles tsunamis?

...in the US, you have to have flood coverage and a policy that doesn't exclude certain natural disasters.

Oh noes, someone could misunderstand that.

I should have added, "in order to be covered".

Of course, "a policy that doesn't exclude..." should have made that clear if the confused person actually thought about it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Evelyn Mervine (Kittynh's spawn) posted 2 great interviews with her dad on her blog (http://georneys.blogspot.com/). Another great resource, in addition to those in this thread who actually know the topic, like you two and Hindmost.

Part I: http://i4.simkl.com/AuF/N4/d079ba76c70ebd02df8945cbbb8587f4.mp3

Part IIa: http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/4c8s2l8vbm

Part IIb: http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/1ces0vwj54

Thank you, Scrut. Evelyn's interview of her dad was indeed very well done. I also plan on putting together a blog post later this evening on all of this; I'll share it with you when I'm finished.

 

[Kestrel]

And indeed cannot even POSSIBLY be. I could open up the containment like a pistachio and crush the reactor vessel, and though you would have a mess, it could never, ever approach the scale of Chernobyl.

And the reason is graphite.

The Chernobyl reactor design also allowed the chain reaction to build up incredibly fast compared to conventional designs. Seconds after the initial power surge, the roof of the building was gone and the core was on fire.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can assure you that those of us here who actually know something about nuclear physics & engineering are not saying such concerns are complete woo. "Concern" does not, however, translate into hysteria - you are arguing a false dichotomy.

No, you are over-reading 'hysteria' into comments where no hysteria exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Read in the original context, it appears obvious to me that that meant "you have to have [specific] flood coverage [not just regular property insurance] [for insurance companies to be liable for your tsunami losses]."

Which is completely accurate, in my understanding as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you. I thought it was clear but I can see how it could be misread if one stopped reading halfway through the sentence.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No, you are over-reading 'hysteria' into comments where no hysteria exists.

You are assuming that because some of us - who have actual training in physics & engineering and understand what is going on more than most people - are attempting to address the situation in a rational manner, then we must not be concerned and think that all such concern is woo. You are wrong; what we are concerned about is getting as much factually correct information out as possible, and we keep running into people who have been grossly misinformed by the media on this issue. That is more than frustrating and can lead some of us to be more than a little testy when continually hit with "this is going to be another Chernobyl!" and similar tripe.

I have more important things to do right now than continue engaging in this childish discussion with you, so... bye.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Take the chip off your shoulder, MatMax. It doesn't become you.

 

[Puppycow]

Article and picture of man rescued out at sea.

As the wave approached, Shinkawa took the fateful decision to return home to collect belongings.

*facepalm*

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

*facepalm*

Sad isn't it? And for whatever reason his wife returned with him and she has likely drowned.

 

[Myriad]

From what I understand, there are two U.S. carrier groups currently off the coast of Japan assisting with rescue & recovery efforts. And yes, they are doing all they can to provide food, water, medicine, etc.

Yes, and I'm glad they're there, and I doubt anyone aboard who can fly a helicopter is getting much sleep. What's lacking is the brute force of numbers from the days of total war. Which is a great blessing overall, but there are occasionally times such as this where it could come in handy, e.g. to move huge amounts of supplies rapidly by sea without destination port facilities.

Of course, D-Day took months to plan, way too long to be useful here, so 20th century force sizes would have to somehow be combined with modern day just-in-time logistics to make it work. Just a bit of the kind of impractical "why can't they just..." wishful thinking that one is reduced to when one sees people in need but cannot directly intervene. No offense to anyone intended, least of all to those who are doing what they can to help.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[r-j]

I just got home from a trip and turn on CNN and they are showing this huge tsunami, but it's snowing in the video. They are also showing video of a huge quake with snow in the video? What is going on? They aren't saying when the tsunami video is from!

Nothing on the CNN website either. Has there been another quake? I don't remember it snowing on the 11th?