• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 8.8 quake in Sendai, Japan

The total amounts are very small. The whole core is about 150 tons of fuel. Which isn't really very much volume as heavy as it is.

Putting this amount in perspective.

A 500 MW coal-burning power plant uses about 1.4 million tons of coal per year.

Coal contains between one and ten ppm Uranium and generally 2.5 to 25 ppm Thorium.

So it follows that the coal plant generates between 1.4 and 14 tons of waste Uranium in that year and between 3.5 and 35 tons of waste Thorium.

In the world as a whole there are about 3000 (equivalent) power plants that size, so the total amount of uranium waste is between 4200 tons and 42,000 tons, and the amount of Thorium waste is between 10,500 tons and 105,000 tons.

Mind you, that waste is less dangerous volume-for volume because it does not contain fission products from burning in a reactor.
 
Last edited:
It's funny, nobody ever talks about the damage done to the United States by the tsunamis. No videos of the waves in Hawaii or California any more. I almost forgot this also happened to other countries.

Did anyone ever hear anything about the low lying pacific islands?
 
angrysoba said:
Apparently, Pu-239 is the isotope mostly used in nuclear reactors:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239

Whereas Plutonium-240 has a half-life of 6560 years.
Click to expand...

As a reactor operates, excess neutrons will turn U238 into plutonium 239. However, if the Pu 239 remains in the reactor for a longer period, it will capture more neutrons and become Pu240 and 241 and very little 242. In addition, some of the Pu will fission and contribute to the reactor power as the fuel cycle progresses--about 30 to 50% of the reactor power at end of life.

MOX fuel is a mix of reactor grade plutonium along with natural uranium. the plutonium is a mix of 239, 240 and 241. It is good for a reactor, but poor for any bomb building. To breed Pu 239 in a reactor for a bomb, the key is to shutdown and refuel often to extract the Pu 239 before too much of the other isotopes are manufactured.

MOX fuel is being used in reactors to get rid of excess bomb material. It is not widely used right now as the reactor has to have some modifications--most reactors use low enriched U235 (typically about 5%). Whether a reactor is fueled with MOX fuel or low enriched U235, it will make plutonium since there most of the core is U238 just waiting to soak up excess neutrons.

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

glenn
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
It's funny, nobody ever talks about the damage done to the United States by the tsunamis. No videos of the waves in Hawaii or California any more. I almost forgot this also happened to other countries.

Did anyone ever hear anything about the low lying pacific islands?
Click to expand...

Nothing remotely comparing with Japan.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/118815039.html
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/Oldest_known_mother_albatross_survives_tsunami.html

I think wave height and surge are interchangeable terms right now.
 
r-j said:
Did anyone ever hear anything about the low lying pacific islands?
Click to expand...


An informative article HERE (Honolulu Star Advertiser) about the effects of the tsunami on the Hawaii islands.


Honolulu Star Advertiser said:
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami watch at 7:56 p.m. after the quake struck 231 miles northeast of Tokyo.

Chip McCreary, director of the warning center, said because of the long length of tsunami waves, "they wrap around our islands very efficiently" so there is no point of impact that may see higher waves than other areas.

"There are some places that will be affected more than other places," McCreary said. "From our history, we've had bigger impacts in Hilo, Kahului and Haleiwa and our models bear that out."
Click to expand...


Another article there gives some possible nominees for the Darwin Award:-


Honolulu Star Advertiser said:
California surfers waited in water for tsunami.

.....Around 8:10 a.m., within seconds, the water dropped by about 9 feet as the harbor turned into a river as water was sucked out to sea.

Surfers who had been paddling on their boards were able to walk with them on the wet sand. Others stayed in water, despite warnings from lifeguards to come in.
Click to expand...


Takes all sorts....

Compus
 
Puppycow said:
Evidence

More evidence
Click to expand...
It looks to me like people are still talking past each other when discussing the tsunami "Wave Height" in spite of links and explanations posted earlier in this thread and others.

Similar sources have been posted earlier in the thread but I think it might help some people to read this:
http://cdip.ucsd.edu/?nav=documents&sub=index&xitem=waves

all the way through and then go on to the tsunami specific page linked at the bottom of that introductory article. (Provided also because someone mentioned the impact on the US coast a little earlier as well)

and also see links here:
http://www.tsunami.noaa.gov/
a.o.
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/basics.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/NOAAPMEL?feature=mhum#p/c/4/Lo5uH1UJF4A

The greatest height above sea level -I've seen reported so far- at which debris was deposited by these tsunami waves hitting Japan and subsequently filling up bays and valleys is 29.6 meters in Ofunato. (Source:http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/30_03.html)

That is not the height of the crest of the wave(s) (above still water level or measured deepest point Through to highest tip Crest), of a single wave however, and I think that is still confusing a lot of people.

The question asked was, I think, about eyeballing the height of the crest of wave(s) above the rest of the visual water and comparing that to the height of buildings.

As already pointed out, the original question doesn't take several of the dynamics of the behavior of water in general and -tsunami- waves in particular into consideration. Crest height isn't necessarily the most troublesome aspect of waves generated by earthquakes and the impact on land when such a powerful -long but not necessarily high- wave reaches land based -in part- on the characteristics of ocean floor and coast line of the land area where the tsunami makes landfall.

Having said that, those images you posted, illustrate a different "wave height" than the "wave height" the original poster asked about. Mixing run-up with amplitude.

Having said that too - I also don't know what the tallest single wave was at any particular point along the Japanese coast. I think it is a somewhat misleading number anyway.

With apologies for my own imprecise language in this summary.
 
More about the Darwin Awards and tsunami victims:-

darwinawards.com said:
Serbian Tsunami

(26 December 2004, Nis, Serbia) Danilo, 36, is the only known Serbian victim of the giant tsunami that devastated countries around the Indian Ocean. And he was at home in Serbia at the time. He blames television for the tragedy.

He was so shocked when he saw the tsunami footage on TV that he jumped out his apartment window. As he fell from the second floor, it occurred to him that the tsunami was not actually a threat to South Serbia, which is separated by an entire continent from the Indian Ocean. But it was too late to avoid impact: he suffered two broken legs and a damaged spine.

Recovering later from his tsunami injuries, he threatened to sue the local television station for announcing that "the tsunami is coming our way," and people should "immediately evacuate." A spokesperson for the television station said Danilo must have misunderstood the reporter's words.
Click to expand...


:=] As above, takes all sorts

Compus
 
NoahFence said:
I heard they were supposed to encase the entire complex in concrete, like Chernobyl. Wouldn't this tell you that it's going to be a permanent problem there?
Click to expand...

Concreting cannot be done when there is still a massive amount of decay heat. I'm not expert on the stuff so can only parrot something I was reading yesterday. The reactors, spent fuel will need to be cooled before anything like that can happen.

Ah, found the comment:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059742&cid=35657362

See this post which starts

Concrete is a mixture that's water-based. Start with some dry concrete powder (or some Jell-O Instant Pudding), and your radioactive water becomes radioactive concrete.
...
So in the short term it doesn't really do anything other than blow a lot of money and look very busy. Once the reactions cease and it cools, slapping some concrete on it might isolate it from the environment, for at most a couple decades, at most. Sooner or later you'll have to clean it up and the concrete will just get in the way.
Click to expand...
 
Travis said:
The coal lobby is huge and well funded.

People are needlessly scared of the alternative (nuclear).
Click to expand...

Probably little to do with lobbying. 'Well funded' lobbying is not what affects people, it's how the message plays against personal experience and internal fears. People evaluate risks in levels that they understand, and they understand fire and coal burning. They don't understand radiation and have a perception that radiation is all long lived and deadly --- so that's scary.
 
And people from 50 miles around don't have to evacuate when a coal plant catches on fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom