Merged 8.8 quake in Sendai, Japan

[MarkCorrigan]

On contaminated food bans:



I understand they are trying to minimize panic. But they don't talk about cumulative effects of radiation in many other things besides the vegetables, and the "natural environment" is misleading too. The natural environment has been contaminated. Background radiation has increased significantly, especially near the nuclear plants. So yes, eating this one vegetable for 10 days may be fine, but what about adding up all the other radiation people are exposed to?

It's still fairly insignificant based on the current figures.
ETA: In fact, this confusion is entirely to do with the fact that John Q Public doesn't understand doses of radiation, what constitutes harmful, and what is "double" natural radiation. /ETA

In other forums I have seen people say things like "aside from Chernobyl, how many deaths can be blamed on nuclear accidents?" or "ignoring the cooling pond issue which IS a weakness...." No, let's not brush aside Chernobyl

Why not? It has absolutely bugger all to do with Fukushima, and isn't relevant to the discussion on nuclear power in the future. That's like saying that we should look at the safety standards of cars in the 1940's in order to judge car safety today. It's totally insane.

or ignore the cooling pond issues, please.

Who is doing that? An example, please?

I would assume that most pro-nuclear people are stating the fact that the cooling rods issue, which was in part forced upon the nuclear industry by the anti-nuclear people opposing the reuse of "spent" fuel rods, isn't as it currently stands a danger to people outside the plant. They are saying that with current radiation levels no one is in any significant danger right now outside the plant. This could well get worse, and people might end up in significant danger, but with the figures we have at the moment they aren't.

A balanced approach to meeting our energy needs should take all risk factors into account and weight them against the benefits.

All relevant risk factors, yes, of which Chernobyl isn't even remotely close to being, and of which Fukushima is an example of pretty much the worst possible natural occurrence to hit a power station.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If they could get all the fuel out, there would be no need for the concrete grave. There would still be a bunch of contamination in all the structure, but that can be cleaned up to a point where they could dismantle the plant and bury it in a nuke grave yard.

Getting the fuel out will be difficult as it will be in various stages of disrepair: some will be OK and not leaking, some will have blisters/leaking and some is going to be broken in a piles at the bottom of the spent fuel pool or vessel. Once cooling is established and reliable, they will have to look at how to make special tools to get all the fuel into containers that can store it for extended periods and also shield the high levels of radiation. It will be a pain and very expensive.

glenn

Got it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I agree Chernobyl is not a good solution as it does push the problem off to a future date. I don't think it will be culturally acceptable to Japan anyhow. Normal spent fuel can be stored in dry concrete casks after it has been out of the reactor for long enough. Some of the spent fuel here will still require cooling for a significant period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage

glenn

Interesting. I did not know such a thing existed.

Either way, it sounds like they'll be dealing with these power plants long after the rest of the earthquake/tsunami destruction is cleaned up.

 

[BenBurch]

I cannot imagine why most of those cores in the pools were not placed in dry cask storage years ago. In the USA they would have been.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I cannot imagine why most of those cores in the pools were not placed in dry cask storage years ago. In the USA they would have been.

Weren't they in the process of shutting some of these plants down (decommisioning?) before the quake? I thought I read that somewhere.

 

[BenBurch]

Weren't they in the process of shutting some of these plants down (decommisioning?) before the quake? I thought I read that somewhere.

Yes, I read that too, but transition of the older cores from the pools to dry casks is a separate activity. You need to keep a core in the pools until it drops to a certain amount of heat release that is compatible with dry storage, then it can go into a cask.

 

[quadraginta]

I cannot imagine why most of those cores in the pools were not placed in dry cask storage years ago. In the USA they would have been.

I had somehow gotten the impression that holding pools in the U.S. were having capacity issues, and that the progression to dry cask storage was well behind here.

Part of this impression could easily be due to hysteria journalism.

I wonder what the actual status is. How could we determine if all spent fuel in the U.S. which was suitable for dry storage has been handled that way?

 

[BenBurch]

I had somehow gotten the impression that holding pools in the U.S. were having capacity issues, and that the progression to dry cask storage was well behind here.

Part of this impression could easily be due to hysteria journalism.

I wonder what the actual status is. How could we determine if all spent fuel in the U.S. which was suitable for dry storage has been handled that way?

We started moving to dry casks about ten years ago. The reasons were capacity but also terrorism.

Even before 9/11 I was on a talk show discussing why the ballistic missile defense was no insurance against terrorism because ballistic missiles are just not the easiest way for a terrorist to do us harm, and I suggested the the most likely deadly attack was stealing an aircraft and crashing it into a target of high value like the Union Carbide plant in Institute WV or the spent fuel pool at a nuclear reactor. And indeed this sort of event had been discussed many times prior to that.

 

[Rolfe]

I haven't seen all of the videos. Did some of the sea wall actually collapse or wash away? Or were they simply overtopped?

There's a film from Kamaishi, showing the enormous tsunami walls smashed to pieces.

The ruined town of Kamaishi

Sadly, it appears the residents of one village were so confident of the walls they didn't evacuate.

Here's Rikuzentakata as the clean-up starts.


Ironically, YouTube has a collection of videos of traditional festivals in the town, uploaded by the town council I think. The film seems to date from August last year.


Rolfe.

 

[quadraginta]

We started moving to dry casks about ten years ago. The reasons were capacity but also terrorism.

Even before 9/11 I was on a talk show discussing why the ballistic missile defense was no insurance against terrorism because ballistic missiles are just not the easiest way for a terrorist to do us harm, and I suggested the the most likely deadly attack was stealing an aircraft and crashing it into a target of high value like the Union Carbide plant in Institute WV or the spent fuel pool at a nuclear reactor. And indeed this sort of event had been discussed many times prior to that.

I had thought they had been doing it for longer than that, so I took a peek at the Wiki article on the topic, which says we started in '86. I have no idea how quickly the strategy began to be adopted by other plants, but I think they should definitely be encouraged to do so if they are dragging their heels.

I wonder what reasons there might be to discourage the change-over. If there only needs to be a five year (minimum) wait, per the most recent NRC directive, it would seem that we should not have much of a holding pond capacity issue. Was that being overblown?

 

[BenBurch]

Not many went to dry cask early on, as I understand it, because they thought the repository would happen and it would be a wasted effort. Now they are being required to do so.

 

[Skwinty]

The fuel pools at the nuclear station I work at, have had 2 upgrades to the spent fuel pool to increase capacity.

This is done by changing the racks rather than increasing the pool size.

Once you reach a certain density, then you just can't fit any more in, regardless of the cooling system.

We started storing in dry cask about 10 years ago.

I doubt any fuel elements will leave site for repository storage until the plant is decommissioned.

ETA: We do have a secure repository but so far only intermediate waste has been stored there.

 

[Puppycow]

Status of the reactors

Looking at the 'after' picture of #3, it's hard to imagine how the spent fuel pool (which was above the reactor in the same building) could still be functioning.

Weren't they in the process of shutting some of these plants down (decommisioning?) before the quake? I thought I read that somewhere.

I read that too, but apparently it was a half-truth at best. Yes, the No.1 reactor was originally scheduled to be decommissioned this month but the company had applied for and received permission to continue using the reactor for another 10 years.
Japan Extended Reactor’s Life, Despite Warning

TOKYO — Just a month before a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi plant at the center of Japan’s nuclear crisis, government regulators approved a 10-year extension for the oldest of the six reactors at the power station despite warnings about its safety.

The regulatory committee reviewing extensions pointed to stress cracks in the backup diesel-powered generators at Reactor No. 1 at the Daiichi plant, according to a summary of its deliberations that was posted on the Web site of Japan’s nuclear regulatory agency after each meeting. The cracks made the engines vulnerable to corrosion from seawater and rainwater. The generators are thought to have been knocked out by the tsunami, shutting down the reactor’s vital cooling system.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the plant, has since struggled to keep the reactor and spent fuel pool from overheating and emitting radioactive materials.

Several weeks after the extension was granted, the company admitted that it had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment related to the cooling systems, including water pumps and diesel generators, at the power station’s six reactors, according to findings published on the agency’s Web site shortly before the earthquake.

Regulators said that “maintenance management was inadequate” and that the “quality of inspection was insufficient.”

Less than two weeks later, the earthquake and tsunami set off the crisis at the power station.

 

[Puppycow]

This news is bound to cause a lot of apprehension even if the actual risk is small:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110323x2.html

Needless to say, all the bottled water in Tokyo was sold out within a few hours of this announcement.

 

[Puppycow]

There's a film from Kamaishi, showing the enormous tsunami walls smashed to pieces.

The ruined town of Kamaishi

Sadly, it appears the residents of one village were so confident of the walls they didn't evacuate.

Here's Rikuzentakata as the clean-up starts.


Ironically, YouTube has a collection of videos of traditional festivals in the town, uploaded by the town council I think. The film seems to date from August last year.


Rolfe.

Thanks. I appreciate those.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, unorganized 'relief workers' are causing more trouble, just like they did in 1995. Too many workers also puts strain on local food, even when they aren't stealing gasoline.

 

[babycondor]

It's still fairly insignificant based on the current figures.
ETA: In fact, this confusion is entirely to do with the fact that John Q Public doesn't understand doses of radiation, what constitutes harmful, and what is "double" natural radiation. /ETA
Why not? It has absolutely bugger all to do with Fukushima, and isn't relevant to the discussion on nuclear power in the future. That's like saying that we should look at the safety standards of cars in the 1940's in order to judge car safety today. It's totally insane.

I meant that we should not brush aside the lessons learned from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the current dangerous situation at Fukushima. They're each important for different reasons in the total picture of nuclear safety.

I understand today's nuclear technology is greatly improved, but continuing to operate the outdated plants is asking for trouble. I wouldn't drive a car without seat belts, decent safety lights, good brakes, power steering, etc. because it's too dangerous on today's roads.

Who is doing that? An example, please?

Here.

I would assume that most pro-nuclear people are stating the fact that the cooling rods issue, which was in part forced upon the nuclear industry by the anti-nuclear people opposing the reuse of "spent" fuel rods, isn't as it currently stands a danger to people outside the plant. They are saying that with current radiation levels no one is in any significant danger right now outside the plant. This could well get worse, and people might end up in significant danger, but with the figures we have at the moment they aren't.

Let's hope it doesn't get worse. But I think it's reasonable to consider "worst case scenarios" when looking at any technology and weighing the benefits and risks.

All relevant risk factors, yes, of which Chernobyl isn't even remotely close to being, and of which Fukushima is an example of pretty much the worst possible natural occurrence to hit a power station.

I'm not convinced they're irrelevant. The circumstances may differ, but all nuclear accidents are relevant to a discussion of the safety of the technology, even if we think we have fixed the problems and learned the lessons from these disasters. I just don't think we can afford to be complacent at all.

One obvious lesson from the triple-whammy Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear plant mess is that ultimately, we're at the mercy of forces we can neither completely predict nor even partially control.

 

[Puppycow]

Well, unorganized 'relief workers' are causing more trouble, just like they did in 1995. Too many workers also puts strain on local food, even when they aren't stealing gasoline.

Yeah, it's best for random people who don't know what they're doing to just stay out of the area. They'll only get in the way and be one more mouth to feed and body to shelter.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, unorganized 'relief workers' are causing more trouble, just like they did in 1995. Too many workers also puts strain on local food, even when they aren't stealing gasoline.

Sorry, for those unable to read Japanese it basically is about a guy claiming to be an aid working stealing gasoline instead.

 

[Rolfe]

BBC report (Damian Grammaticus) on the search for bodies in Ofunato.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12832371

I didn't realise funeral rituals were quite so important to the Japanese. The recovery workers are being very respectful, and I saw footage of one team laying each body they brought out on the ground and formally bowing to it before going on to the next. But if their religious beliefs require a certain set of funeral rites, I fear many survivors are going to be very traumatised as they are not going to get a lot of the bodies at all.

Rolfe.