Fukushima - It's Not Over

[Diogenes]

I note that you posted 2 more posts and you did not answer 3 easy questions.

These are very direct questions, they require 1 word answers.

---------------
Who were you referring to as "you" in post #4?

In post #4 did you purposefully say the word for Level 2, or did you do that on accident?

In post #24 is the highlighted claim true as far as you know? Yes or no.
---------------

The amazing amount of spin in your posts instead of answering 3 easy, direct, questions is very telling. It tells us you are interested in some agenda as opposed to facts.

We will see if you post again without answering those 3 very easy questions.

I'm not sure you actually know what you're asking.

The word "incident" applies to 2 and 3, right? And, of course, Japan made that call and it apparently has yet to be confirmed by the UN's nuclear agency. The scale we're talking about is the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Maybe there's confusion here on your part because you're not away of the specific uses of "incident" and "accident" in the nuclear field.

Examples of level 3:

-THORP plant Sellafield (United Kingdom) – 2005.
-Paks Nuclear Power Plant (Hungary), 2003; fuel rod damage in cleaning tank.
-Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant (Spain), 1989; fire destroyed many control systems; the reactor was shut down.
-San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (United States), 2011; Ammonia leak. No evacuation called for.

When we start into "accident" we have the formerly classified:

SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States) – 1961, reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three operators.

That was in Idaho. I went past it daily on the way to the S5G prototype where I received practical training on a submarine reactor system. You might still not have even heard of it. That small reactor, being tested for use in remote bases (military but I'm guessing civilian (scientific) use, say in Antarctica was probably on the table) exploded.

And "you" is YOU as in you've present an article.

Now...are we done with your semanatics and are you ready to talk about the actual activity levels and what that actually means?

 

[This is The End]

Conspiracy.

That's what you've come up with.

Sure, I'm a lobbyist for Monsanto, big pharma and the nuclear industry. Please let them know, though, because I expect I'm owed back pay.

Do you think that people don't read these threads or something? I have accused you of nothing of the sort. You not seeing this topic for what it is because you entered it apparently with preconceived notions and agendas does not mean that I am accusing you of being part of a conspiracy. Equating those 2 things is, quite frankly, a bit weird.

Read this thread for comprehension and I guarantee that you will be very surprised with yourself.

I again ask you, please answer the 3 direct and easy questions that you have since ignored.

 

[This is The End]

My previous post was before your more recent. I see you have attempted to address 2 of the 3 questions.

The word "incident" applies to 2 and 3, right? And, of course, Japan made that call and it apparently has yet to be confirmed by the UN's nuclear agency. The scale we're talking about is the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Maybe there's confusion here on your part because you're not away of the specific uses of "incident" and "accident" in the nuclear field.

This one is very easy.

The article in the OP is discussing raising this situation from a Level 1 "anomaly" to a Level 3 "serious incident"

Here is your first post in this thread, post #4:

And "incident" still fails to reach the level of "accident" on that international scale you're referencing.

You very clearly have "incident" in quotes.

This link that I provided to you in post #24 shows that it goes:

Level 3: Serious incident
Level 2: Incident
Level 1: Anomaly

You claim now to have been knowledgeable of these scales. So that means in post #4 you either said "incident" on accident, or intentional. I asked you which.

You could have said "Yes, I realize I made a mistake in post #4. I said the word for Level 2 while the article in the OP is actually discussing Level 3."

Now look at your current response to that question:

I'm not sure you actually know what you're asking.

The word "incident" applies to 2 and 3, right? And, of course, Japan made that call and it apparently has yet to be confirmed by the UN's nuclear agency. The scale we're talking about is the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Maybe there's confusion here on your part because you're not away of the specific uses of "incident" and "accident" in the nuclear field.

Examples of level 3:

-THORP plant Sellafield (United Kingdom) – 2005.
-Paks Nuclear Power Plant (Hungary), 2003; fuel rod damage in cleaning tank.
-Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant (Spain), 1989; fire destroyed many control systems; the reactor was shut down.
-San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (United States), 2011; Ammonia leak. No evacuation called for.

When we start into "accident" we have the formerly classified:

SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States) – 1961, reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three operators.

That was in Idaho. I went past it daily on the way to the S5G prototype where I received practical training on a submarine reactor system. You might still not have even heard of it. That small reactor, being tested for use in remote bases (military but I'm guessing civilian (scientific) use, say in Antarctica was probably on the table) exploded.

Do you see how that completely ignores the question to you that I have just outlined?

At least you were honest when you prefaced it as:

I'm not sure you actually know what you're asking.

I have very clearly explained what I am asking in this post.

Now on to question #2:

"Who were you referring to as "you" in post #4?"

Here is your response:

And "you" is YOU as in you've present an article.

Now here is your post #4:

And "incident" still fails to reach the level of "accident" on that international scale you're referencing.

Now read my OP.

I am clearly not "referencing" anything. The article is. Also, the article makes it very clear that they are only discussing raising it from a Level 1 anomaly to a Level 3 serious incident.

Your post #4 merely repeats that. Does that make any sense to you at all? Why would you make post #4 which parrots exactly what the Reuters article states?

That is the first of many parts of your posts in this thread that tells me you are discussing another thread.

Now...are we done with your semanatics and are you ready to talk about the actual activity levels and what that actually means?

You are still clearly avoiding the 3rd question. And you have yet to answer at least 1 of the other 2.

Here, again, is the 3rd question:

Tepco has been accused, by various high profile sources, of covering up the extent of the damage.

From the article:

Tepco, has... since been accused of covering up the extent of the problems at the plant. After months of denial, Tepco recently admitted the plant was leaking contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean from trenches between the reactor buildings and the shoreline.

Is the highlighted true? Did they indeed knowingly deny for months that the plant was leaking contaminated water into the Pacific?

Is the highlighted true as far as you are aware?

Just say yes or no. After you say yes or no, then you can explain your answer.

 

[Solitaire]

What happens when you dilute 300 tonnes of "highly radioactive" water in the Pacific Ocean?

This can be simulated by spinning water in a large bowl, letting it settle down
for a few minutes, then adding a very small drop of ink. A pity I can not find
a your tube video at the moment.

 

[Diogenes]

...

Just say yes or no. After you say yes or no, then you can explain your answer.

The actual point that we've been trying to make...to work up to over the course of conversation...is that the distinction between 1 and 3 really isn't a big deal. If I'd been looking at it from that international scale perspective I'd have guessed 3 initially just for fact of a loss of coolant and the resulting damage to the plant from that (especially plants 1 and 3).

You apparently want it to be a big deal. It really isn't. macdoc posted the chart that is completely relevant to even the level 3 criteria...putting into perspective the exposure the workers received during the incident response. 3.6 mSv was the one-day dose, even if we assume they received 50 mSv their still below the threshold for transient radiation sickness. They did not lose containment on fission products, they lost containment on activated water.

Then there's supposed to be some kind of freak-out over 24 microCuries released into the Pacific Ocean. Even if at 1000 times that we're looking at virtually nothing.

You're quibbling over nothing and I sure as heck don't have to "explain" anything to you.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Don't tell anyone about the huge dump of radioactive waste just off of the coast of California near San Francisco. It contained roughly ten times the total of the estimates of what Fukishima has released so far into the ground @~14,500Ci (Farallon's) vs ~4,900Ci (Fukishima). There hasn't been any observed problems after over 50 years of being there, and they have been looking for them.

As to the terminology between using incident vs serious incident goes, a level 3 is still an incident (albeit more serious than a level 2) and it's normal when discussing them to simply call it an incident in conversations about them. People already know what you mean and it's not considered an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation.

 

[Aepervius]

Wow.

That's a really effective way too cool a reactor.

I wonder what the environmental impact of that was.

Just like England and belgium dumping 10 of thousand of radioactive waste barely miles away from french coast in the 50ies : they used the msot expediant method not caring about consequence.

 

[Floyt]

Oh, stop the Claus-level bickering. Has this "yes or no" stuff ever done anyone any good in the history of this board?

The fact is that the parties tasked with the responsibility of cleaning up this radioactive mess are botching it to some degree, which is troubling because they are NOT playing with Happy Pink Matches here. Notwithstanding the nuke fanboys' readiness to take a swim in the tanks and brag about it, this kind of occurrence is at least as undesireable as an oil company letting a few thousand tonnes leak out on the side. The local ecosystem does feel the results, thank you very much.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh, stop the Claus-level bickering. Has this "yes or no" stuff ever done anyone any good in the history of this board?

The fact is that the parties tasked with the responsibility of cleaning up this radioactive mess are botching it to some degree, which is troubling because they are NOT playing with Happy Pink Matches here. Notwithstanding the nuke fanboys' readiness to take a swim in the tanks and brag about it, this kind of occurrence is at least as undesireable as an oil company letting a few thousand tonnes leak out on the side. The local ecosystem does feel the results, thank you very much.

The local ecosystem around coal plant probably feel much more result from the radioactive material dumped by same coal burning plant. From what we seem to be speaking of here (mostly alpha a bit of gamma), after dilution is almost certainly invisible to the ecosystem.

Heck even in Chernobyl, the long term situation is still unknown, but wildlife seems to have taken over the places human left. There are report of malformation, but natural selection seems to make them kick the bucket and be out of the population quicker, and it is far away from the catastrophic stuff from disaster end of the world movie one would expect by reading people on forums. ETA : a "Stalker" with bizarre phenomenon it ain't.

Yes fukushima was a disaster, and is classified 7 by Japan (the individual reactor are much lower than that, only the overall was classified at 7). Yes that new incident is classified as 3.

The contamination and death toll is still lower by many order of magnitude than the death toll estimated caused by coal plants.

 

[jj]

The contamination and death toll is still lower by many order of magnitude than the death toll estimated caused by coal plants.

Yep, but we don't hear about that for some reason. Thorium and Radon in coal is a well-acknowleged problem, and no, while you may be able to capture the thorium waste, you aren't going to capture the Radon any time soon with any kind of realistic (for a boiler) chemical reaction.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah some 140,000 deaths per year attributed to coal and rising. Billions upon billions in healthcare costs engendered and totally destroyed ecosystems in coal mining districts.

This is a mindbendingly horrid litany...read and weep.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/counting-the-cost-the-hidden-price-of-coal-power/

I have to wince about 300 tons of water against these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DesTCK7dn78

There are people living in the hbomb test region in Russia.....now THEY have problems but they still survive. Concerns about the Japanese reactor are laughable in comparison.

 

[a_unique_person]

Just how long does it take to cool down one of these reactors? Forever? Can't they keep reusing the water once it's cooled. My very limited understanding is they are using 300 or so tonnes a day and then having to store that and use another 300 tonnes the next day. By my calculations an olympic swimming pool contains water weighing about 8 times as much. So, every 8 days they need to set aside storage for an olympic swimming pool-size amount of water. How long have they been doing that and how much longer must they keep doing it? And is that possible anyway.

One of the attractions of nuclear power is the amount of energy you can get from a small amount of fuel. The problem they have is that you have all this contaminated water in what is now a wreckers yard of nuclear reactor parts. It's not functional in the way a nuclear power plant should be. They pumped in seawater to cool down the reactors, that has got to cause long term problems as well.

 

[Floyt]

Yeah some 140,000 deaths per year attributed to coal and rising. Billions upon billions in healthcare costs engendered and totally destroyed ecosystems in coal mining districts.

This is a mindbendingly horrid litany...read and weep.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/counting-the-cost-the-hidden-price-of-coal-power/

I have to wince about 300 tons of water against these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DesTCK7dn78

There are people living in the hbomb test region in Russia.....now THEY have problems but they still survive. Concerns about the Japanese reactor are laughable in comparison.

Yes, and 1.25 million deaths from car traffic per year. So I assume we should ignore those coal-related fatalities, because they are clearly just laughable in comparison?
This one-upmanship is sophomoric. People are treating a dangerous technology in a cavalier manner and then try to hide their ****-ups. That deserves to be publicized and condemned. That there are even more damaging processes going on that are being ignored even more blithely does zip to detract from that.

 

[Diogenes]

Yes, and 1.25 million deaths from car traffic per year. So I assume we should ignore those coal-related fatalities, because they are clearly just laughable in comparison?
This one-upmanship is sophomoric....

Your assertion here is, indeed, sophomoric, agreed.

I've tried to engage with actual numbers and what those actual numbers mean. We know these things.

 

[macdoc]

One wonders if he reads what he writes?

ALL technology carries risks.Nuclear is exceptionally safe and has a excellent track record and is essential to moving to a low carbon futre

Coal is exceptionally destructive.....has a horrid track record AND IS NOT NECESSARY any more.

 

[macdoc]

The problem they have is that you have all this contaminated water in what is now a wreckers yard of nuclear reactor parts. It's not functional in the way a nuclear power plant should be. They pumped in seawater to cool down the reactors, that has got to cause long term problems as well.

I think you have little understanding of scale or of how a nuclear plant works....why do you think there are enormous cooling towers. All energy production requires cooling.
Shall we compare the risks of coal holding ponds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

The maximum temperature of the spent fuel bundles decreases significantly between 2 and 4 years, and less from 4 to 6 years. The fuel pool water is continuously cooled to remove the heat produced by the spent fuel assemblies.

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

 

[macdoc]

They pumped in seawater to cool down the reactors, that has got to cause long term problems as well.

that indeed causes problems for the reactors remains and has some secondary reaction issues.
The problem with Japan is the cooling pump power was lost - so the water could not be circulated, spent rods were stored against regulation in temporary pools near the reactors.

No current design of reactor would have those issues nor would they duplicate the true idiocy of Chernobyl which had no containment dome..

People are killed and injured all the time in production of energy, few people are killed or injured in the nuclear industry.

The uranium mining industry has it's share of injuries and fatalities and that's one reason an IFR which needs no new uranium and employs the spent fuel rods is long overdue.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, and 1.25 million deaths from car traffic per year. So I assume we should ignore those coal-related fatalities, because they are clearly just laughable in comparison?

Could we reduce the number of traffic fatalities by building more coal power plants?

 

[Floyt]

Nuclear is exceptionally safe and has a excellent track record and is essential to moving to a low carbon futre

Coal is exceptionally destructive.....has a horrid track record AND IS NOT NECESSARY any more.

No one here is arguing against the second.

The former makes me think you are living on some planet made from cotton candy, wafting in the gentle breezes of short-term optimism. "Exceptionally safe" technologies do not engage in melt-downs and do not produce vast amounts of poisonous materials left to future generations for effectively all eternity.
Somehow I find myself convinced you are also one of those who regard the actually safe and sustainable renewable energy technologies as "unreliable".

Could we reduce the number of traffic fatalities by building more coal power plants?

??? You tell me...

 

[Diogenes]

...

The former makes me think you are living on some planet made from cotton candy, wafting in the gentle breezes of short-term optimism. "Exceptionally safe" technologies do not engage in melt-downs and do not produce vast amounts of poisonous materials left to future generations for effectively all eternity....

Or you're unaware of how seriously the NRC takes nuclear safety. I can speak to, at least how seriously the US Navy takes it.

When I got out of the Navy and spent some time working for a commercial contractor it was quite the shock how little quality control was evident. This was through Raytheon doing electrical work on non-nuclear systems aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). The first day I showed up and was told I would be running cable and installing transformers I asked for prints. They looked at me like I was crazy.

In the Nuclear Power Program we really did every preventative maintenance item every time. We really had continual ongoing training and drills, ongoing proficiency tests in maintenance and operations. Every technician was expected to not only understand and remember nuclear design theory but also the ability to retain some cross-rate proficiency. Electronics technicians and electricians were expected to be able to draw all the primary and secondary piping systems through the plant and understand water chemistry. Practically anyone in the department could explain the response of all other persons during any casualty.

If we allowed an automatic protective feature to protect the reactor rather than operator action we would get in trouble. It would be an "incident report".

It isn't that controlled fission events are intrinsically safe, no one is claiming that. What we're telling you is that we're doing it as safe as it is humanly possible to do it and in far excess to any other industry I know anything about.