Merged nuclear power safe?

[Java Man]

Here we're right back where we started: let's not do anything because there's always a possibility that our measures are insufficient.

Nuclear power will not be safe if we don't use it. It will be inexistent. Nuclear power will be safe if we use it and we address the risks and don't cut corners and don't underestimate the gravity of the issue. Go back and read this thread from the start. It is typical Greek tragedy at its best. The audience knows exactly what's going to happen, but yet the characters seem bound to play their role and face their inevitable outcome. Question is, can we as a species with all our mighty technology break away from this?

 

[Aepervius]

Speaking of the devil. Wasn't it you who claimed:

"In the case of the 2 japanese plant we are not even going as far as catastrophic meltdown. To give you an idea, Chernobyl (which is by the way NOT even a likely scenario here, and was a recipe book for egregerious error)"

And I stand by that, we haven't had a catastrophic meltdown and flash reaction like at Chernobyl.

Point us to any source saying there was.

What was is a longer leak over many hours. In an evacuated zone, and apparently predominately toward the ocean.

and

"Nothing is safe in life. Nothing. The question is what are the risk, and are they acceptable, and what are the consequence when the risk becomes reality. The problem is, people don't seem to be able to rationaly assess the nuclear risks, and the media is not helping. 10000 people die in the tsunami, and all most of coverage we get is of the nuclear reactors."

And it still stand. People having fear of flying when they go fearless in their car.

I guess you're the expert in risk assessment here, not. It turns out your assessment fell quite short of the seriousness of the crisis. You even criticized the media for exaggerating the issue. But they get paid to do that. Do you get paid to undervalue the risks?

You are definitively showed a complete lack of understanding of risk assessment in your last post. You keep doing it. Nowhere I mentioned a percentage of chance of going to INES 5,6,7 because I would not be able to do it. What I mentioned is that the risk of specific problem was deemed lower than the cost to protect agaisnt it. You simply are taking ABSOLUTE risk whereas the RELATIVE value need to be looked at.

I'll try to summarize my risk assessment in one paragraph. The death of so many people is a very sad thing, but we must also realize that no amount of money will bring them back to life and no amount of money will allow us to predict were everyone will be at all times and guarantee a safe spot in case of a tsunami. More so no amount of money will allow us to prevent an earthquake from happening. Predict yes, maybe. But bolt down the tectonic plates no. But we can take better precautions with the power plants. If there was prior knowledge of a large tsunami in the last 1000 years and it costs 100 billion to clean up this mess (conservative cleanup and rebuild costs). That's 100 million a year on average that the risk is worth. You can do a lot with 100 million a year in security infrastructure and best practices. For Japan's 54 nuclear plants that's a 2 million annual budget. That's my risk assessment, what's yours?

Firstly the estimate of clean up is around 15 billion the realistic top one I saw flounted. Where the heck did you pull that 100 billion ? FYI Chernobyl Belorusa estimate that the clean up cost them 30 billion over 30 years, but the economic indirect impact was greater , much greater.

Secondly nobody ever said they would not reasses the risk of Tsunami and change the time their battery (what failed after 8h) to last longer. You are the one of a small group which seem to say "booo nuclear bad we should not build any whatsoever because we are not able to learn from the past and make our nuke plant more hard".

Yeah. Right. EU is already planning to ask for battery which last 24 to 48 h or has already implemented it.

But i am speaking to a wall, isn't it ?

 

[Java Man]

Firstly the estimate of clean up is around 15 billion the realistic top one I saw flounted. Where the heck did you pull that 100 billion ? FYI Chernobyl Belorusa estimate that the clean up cost them 30 billion over 30 years, but the economic indirect impact was greater , much greater.

15 billion is the estimate of a cleanup for a still ongoing incident. So I wouldn't write the check just now. Secondly initial budgets are always wrong. Thirdly I'm adding the new reactors to the tab. Notice how I said "cleanup and rebuilding".

More so a tab for 100 billion was listed here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6982624&postcount=859 and I don't recall you ever challenging that value.

So lets take your 15 billion add a bit for unexpected and make it 25 billion. Add say 10 billion per reactor lost. That's between 55 to 65 billion. Sure it is less than my 100 billion, but not a small amount by a long shot. It's still 55 million a year budget over the 1000 year large tsunami period. And I'm not even counting environmental damage, damage to trade and commerce and cleanup of the environment.

 

[Java Man]

And I stand by that, we haven't had a catastrophic meltdown and flash reaction like at Chernobyl.

Point us to any source saying there was.

I already pointed you to a source that lists the incident as a level 7. It's not CNN, or BBC or some media outlet over hyping the crisis. It's the men on top of this as well as the Japanese saying it. You want to challenge the level 7 status take it to the experts.

 

[Cuddles]

I already pointed you to a source that lists the incident as a level 7. It's not CNN, or BBC or some media outlet over hyping the crisis. It's the men on top of this as well as the Japanese saying it. You want to challenge the level 7 status take it to the experts.

A level 7 event does not mean there has been a catastrophic meltdown and flash reaction. You'd probably do better with your arguments if you actually addressed what people say instead of posting total non-sequiturs.

 

[Aepervius]

15 billion is the estimate of a cleanup for a still ongoing incident. So I wouldn't write the check just now. Secondly initial budgets are always wrong. Thirdly I'm adding the new reactors to the tab. Notice how I said "cleanup and rebuilding".

More so a tab for 100 billion was listed here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6982624&postcount=859 and I don't recall you ever challenging that value.

So lets take your 15 billion add a bit for unexpected and make it 25 billion. Add say 10 billion per reactor lost. That's between 55 to 65 billion. Sure it is less than my 100 billion, but not a small amount by a long shot. It's still 55 million a year budget over the 1000 year large tsunami period. And I'm not even counting environmental damage, damage to trade and commerce and cleanup of the environment.

And if you were PROPERLY reading what I wrote you would see that the ECONOMIC impact (tourism and help to the affected area) is the bulk. The CLEANING a very small percentage.

 

[Java Man]

A level 7 event does not mean there has been a catastrophic meltdown and flash reaction. You'd probably do better with your arguments if you actually addressed what people say instead of posting total non-sequiturs.

That's exactly what I'm doing. He's trying to pull a smoke screen by raising the catastrophic meltdown line instead of addressing the level of severity. I never claimed the was a catastrophic meltdown. I raised the issue that he brushed away the risk at the beginning of the thread by saying there would be no catastrophic meltdown. And yet we reached the level of severity achieved by Chernobyl. And that's not my claim, the level of severity at 7 is set by the real pros, not us. And I'm not reading it of the Joe Sensational Times either.

This is my point to him and his boasting of risk assessment and trashing of my position. He's so high in his risk assessment trip that he fails to address that you can reach the same level of severity through different paths. That you don't need a catastrophic meltdown to achieve a level 7 and thus he is unable to claim any special risk assessment skills and much less so downplay others. The level is what represents the effect the incident has on people. Not the actual cause of the level. If you lose your hand it doesn't really matter if it was in a hunting accident, a car accident or a work related accident. You still have no hand. And no amount of rhetoric is going to bring it back. So a level 7 is a level 7 regardless of the course the incident took to get there. And that is what he seems to be missing and so do you. You're too tied up in the details leading to the scenario rather than the repercussions of said scenario. So he believed that because no catastrophic meltdown could happen no level 7 could be achieved and he was obviously horribly wrong. So much for his grandiose risk assessment skills.

 

[Java Man]

And if you were PROPERLY reading what I wrote you would see that the ECONOMIC impact is the bulk.
The CLEANING a very small percentage.

How much do you think the economic bulk would add up to?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Note the most recent status update here.

There it spells out quite clearly that it was raised to 7 due to the cumulative amount of radioactivity. Now keep in mind that we deal with 3 reactors and fours SPF's here. A "real" comparison with Chernobyl's level 7 would need to take only one reactor at that site into account, and thus would probably be at 5 again then.

Also take a look at the actual report here. It clearly says that people agree that Fukushima is very different from Chernobyl.

But i guess that some people are more comfortable with yelling "See, it's level 7 now, so it's a second Chernobyl! We are all going to die!" and panicking around instead of looking at the reality of the situation.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Java Man]

There it spells out quite clearly that it was raised to 7 due to the cumulative amount of radioactivity. Now keep in mind that we deal with 3 reactors and fours SPF's here. A "real" comparison with Chernobyl's level 7 would need to take only one reactor at that site into account, and thus would probably be at 5 again then.

Excuse me you're trying to sell us the idea that we should take single reactor at a time? And thus downplay this to a 5 again? Are you nuts?

Sure Chernobyl did in a day and with a single what Fukushima has done with three over a month. But it seems you're rating the incident based on the incidents details rather than the repercussion on humans and as you say overall radiation leak. "cumulative amount of radioactivity" as you put it.

 

[Kestrel]

But i guess that some people are more comfortable with yelling "See, it's level 7 now, so it's a second Chernobyl! We are all going to die!" and panicking around instead of looking at the reality of the situation.

Spreading fear seems to be the prime motivation for certain people discussing this incident. Unfortunately, most of the US press fell into that category.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Excuse me you're trying to sell us the idea that we should take single reactor at a time? And thus downplay this to a 5 again? Are you nuts?

Sure Chernobyl did in a day and with a single what Fukushima has done with three over a month. But it seems you're rating the incident based on the incidents details rather than the repercussion on humans and as you say overall radiation leak. "cumulative amount of radioactivity" as you put it.

Try reading the links, dude. It's not me who put's it as "cumulative amount of radioactivity". Or do you lack a PDF reader software on your machine, maybe?

You want to evaluate it according to the "repercussion on humans"? Really? You better think twice about that, because you are nicely shooting yourself in the foot if you really want to do that.

But again, have fun panicking around. Don't let the facts disturb you. You would be in good company with that strategy.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Spreading fear seems to be the prime motivation for certain people discussing this incident. Unfortunately, most of the US press fell into that category.

You should see what's happening in Germany. While i'm not familiar with the situation in the US, i'm pretty sure that we easily beat you with respect to fearmongering and one-sided crap journalism about this incident.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

You should see what's happening in Germany. While i'm not familiar with the situation in the US, i'm pretty sure that we easily beat you with respect to fearmongering and one-sided crap journalism about this incident.

Greetings,

Chris

The regular TV news programs in the US were routinely off by 3 to 6 orders of magnitude when reporting radiation levels. They brought in lobbyists and politicians to talk about it instead of actual experts. PBS and the Rachael Maddow show on MSNBC were about the only exceptions.

I ended up watching NHK World from Japan on streaming video. It was refreshing to hear the news from calm voices that had real, up to date and accurate information.

 

[bobdroege7]

And this is why I am glad you don't work there anymore.
Incident should never have the maximum level "always" this is like having terror alert always on red , or having the siren of the ambulance even for a small wound. That make the REAL emergency on the same level as not-am-emergency. There are many reason why this is bad : chief among them because it make complacency (oh another level 7, probably only another small one) , it make resource monopolisation expansive and useless (oh another 7 , let us mobilize the whole sheband , even if it is a small leak), and that put the public in a constant panic (the end is nigh ! repent ! another 7 at the neighbour nuke plant !).

There is a good reason to have a grad. Your method would be similar to have NO GRADE at all, and jsut after the fact explain what went wrong. Contraproductive.

Pretty much did not get what I wrote.

I never wrote "always"

If you know it is a "small wound" or a "small leak" then the situation is different than "a patient is bleeding" or there is a "reactor coolant leak"

I also did not say the management of any plant should publish the level untill they have made an assessment. Losing control over a plant in itself prevents making an accurate assesment of the situation. Failing to regain control for a month and now they change it to a 7, totally bypassing 6.


And you are still saying that there has not been catastrophic meltdown?

JAIF is reporting reactors 1, 2, and 3 have fuel exposed, reactor vessel integrity unknown, and fuel damaged.

A month without cooling, you can bet there is near complete meltdown, I guess it depends on your definition of catastrophic. The smallest one was rated at 1380 MW thermal, and when you stop removing the decay heat which may only have been about 2 percent or so when cooling was lost, that still is 20 some megawatts thermal, when the core gets uncovered it's going to melt. (after it catches fire)

"Flash reaction at Cherenobyl?"

Do you mean prompt criticality?

The critical chain reaction that occurs in a nuclear power plant is controllable as long as the chain reaction requires the neutrons from fission product decay to reach 100% self sustaining. When criticality is reached without waiting for decay of fission products to produce those neutrons, the power can change very fast. This is what happened at Cherynobly and at SL-1.

And I wasn't involved in incident assessment, just maintaining important emergency cooling equipment and containment structures.

 

[MattusMaximus]

It should be rated as 7 because that's how the ratings are defined. The problem is that this sort of continuous slow release isn't really what was expected when the definitions were thought up. In theory you could release a tiny amount every day and still eventually be classed at level 7 even though there's no possibility of ever harming anything. Obviously this accident is a little more severe than that, but it does highlight the deficiencies in using a scale based on raw radioactivity released without taking into account things like the length of release, distribution or isotopes involved.

Cuddles nails it.

And this still isn't close to the level of trouble caused by Chernobyl.

For example: how many people have died of radiation poisoning?

I'm guessing the answer starts with z...

ETA: In an example of just how far some of the anti-nuclear freaks have reached in their twisted ideology, I had some clown come onto my blog and seriously comment - no kidding - that the 27,000+ people killed by the earthquake & tsunami were "better off" than those left behind in Japan who are exposed to the radiation (who are supposedly going to "experience the horrors later in life"). That's just plain sick; some of these folks are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You should see what's happening in Germany. While i'm not familiar with the situation in the US, i'm pretty sure that we easily beat you with respect to fearmongering and one-sided crap journalism about this incident.

Greetings,

Chris

I feel for you, Chris. It must be crazy in Germany.

The media is just dying to hype the hell out of this thing, just like they have from the beginning. After the Fukushima plant situation seemed like it wasn't going to be the end-of-the-world, then our (US) media started to scream about "Government Shutdown!!11! " for a couple of weeks.

When that didn't lead to the end-of-the-world, it's back to "Fukushima is now an INES rating of 7!!! Just like Chernobyl!!11!!1 "

 

[Rolfe]

Cuddles nails it.

And this still isn't close to the level of trouble caused by Chernobyl.

For example: how many people have died of radiation poisoning?

I'm guessing the answer starts with z...

However, much of the reason for the number of deaths at Chernobyl was the delayed response by the authorities. The Japanese authorities cleared the local area promptly to avoid any such risk. Fukushima isn't less bad, as an incident, just because the authorities acted to minimise the risk of fatalities.

Rolfe.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

However, much of the reason for the number of deaths at Chernobyl was the delayed response by the authorities. The Japanese authorities cleared the local area promptly to avoid any such risk. Fukushima isn't less bad, as an incident, just because the authorities acted to minimise the risk of fatalities.

Rolfe.

The first deaths at Chernobyl occurred immediately following the meltdown. Can you say the same for Fukishima? Oh, wait, no. You can't.

Fearmongering is still fearmongering

 

[bobdroege7]

Cuddles nails it.

And this still isn't close to the level of trouble caused by Chernobyl.

For example: how many people have died of radiation poisoning?

I'm guessing the answer starts with z...

ETA: In an example of just how far some of the anti-nuclear freaks have reached in their twisted ideology, I had some clown come onto my blog and seriously comment - no kidding - that the 27,000+ people killed by the earthquake & tsunami were "better off" than those left behind in Japan who are exposed to the radiation (who are supposedly going to "experience the horrors later in life"). That's just plain sick; some of these folks are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The number of deaths is not the only criteria involved in determining the severity of the accident.