Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[Kuko 4000]

The Emperor of Japan is "deeply worried" about the nuclear plants in a rare TV appearance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12755739

Also from the article:

Levels of radiation outside the plant have now fallen from 1,000 millisieverts an hour to 600-800. A single dose of 1,000 millisieverts can cause temporary radiation sickness.

What does 1000 mSv radiation sickness mean? Long term health problems, or something less serious?

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Billion-euro_nuclear_shutdown_in_Germany_1603111.html

The German government has declared a three-month moratorium on nuclear power, in which eight reactors will stay offline, checks will take place and nuclear policy may be reconsidered.

 

[Corsair 115]

In contrast, ask yourself how many people die yearly because America is too scared to use nuclear energy so it has to constantly butt its nose into the Middle East for their oil.

A more individual level of irony would be finding folks scared of the radiation supposedly pouring out of the Japanese nuclear stations who then pull out and light a cigarette.

 

[technoextreme]

What does 1000 mSv radiation sickness mean? Long term health problems, or something less serious?

1Sv means you may die.

 

[macdoc]

as a cancer patient I would get up to 1300 mSV each treatment day after day for 3 weeks.

A nasty sunburn after a while that took a few weeks to fade.

yes there CAN be genetic damage - but you stand more risk driving in stop and go traffic from air borne carcinogens.

It's ingesting particulates - be it mercury, PCB or radioactive particles that causes long term risk.
You get a healthy dose of radiation just taking an airline flight.

Standing around in 1000 msv per hour is NOT a good idea.

all you want to know is here

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

bottom line- radiation isn't killing people....coal is - by the hundreds of thousands.

 

[Mikemcc]

There's a fairly detailed explanation of the situation here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/

 

[JihadJane]

Coal gets a free ride.....

No it doesn't.

 

[Furcifer]

bottom line- radiation isn't killing people....coal is - by the hundreds of thousands.

Coal is actually keeping millions and millions of people alive, possibly billions. It sustains large economies around the world that would otherwise be impossible.

That's reality.

In the make believe world where there were only nuclear plants, and in the make believe world where there were only coal plants, the make believe world of coal plants would see far more people dying due to the production of electricity.

Maybe. It's really hard to say what happens in make believe worlds. What we do know is if all the coal plants went offline today more people would die tomorrow than would have if they didn't.

 

[r-j]

Don't coal plants still work after a disaster? When you need power the most?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you have a source for that first claim? My understanding was that nuclear fuel reserves would only last a century or two (not counting oceanic uranium, which might be impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way).

Terrapower, who is working with Toshiba to construct the first Travelling Wave Reactors, calculates existing US stockpiles of U-238 are sufficient for 3000 years.

This is Dr. Bernard Cohens 1983 paper on recovery of oceanic uranium. 4.5 billion tons is sufficient for 7 million years of energy production.

Cohens paper is brief. This is a more detailed explanation from a group of Canadian and American researchers.

 

[a_unique_person]

Using that logic, then General Electric should have received all the income the plant has generated for the last 40 years.

The power company should have immediately asked for help from GE and anyone else who could help with advice and physical equipment from day one. They appear to have made some major errors along the way.

 

[Ziggurat]

In other words, there's no evidence anyone died from Chernobyl outside of the 34 killed directly by the explosion.

I'm pretty sure you're overstating the case. I believe a number of reactor personnel and emergency responders died from acute radiation exposure in the months following the accident, and their attributed deaths are pretty reliable. Of course, they were very much localized fatalities, and not that many, so your broader point still holds.

 

[Skwinty]

The power company should have immediately asked for help from GE and anyone else who could help with advice and physical equipment from day one. They appear to have made some major errors along the way.

I agree, however it is a bit silly to suggest that GE should cover the cost of the clean up which is what prompted my response.

 

[JihadJane]

Unless your use of the word "consequences" includes "media-induced fear and panic", this is blatantly false.

It does include "'media-induced fear and panic'" but, even it it did not, your assertion is debatable and simplistic.

I wasn't thinking specifically about the Chernobyl accident but, as you have brought it up, here are some articles/papers discussing some possible long-term consequences of it:

'Chernobyl aftermath still hitting Cumbria farmers'

'Inherited Damage Is Found In Chernobyl Area Children'

'Long-Term Mental Health Effects of the Chernobyl Disaster:

An Epidemiologic Survey in Two Former Soviet Regions'

'Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview'

'Chernobyl zone shows decline in biodiversity'

The Chernobyl accident: UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects

I've never seen a scrap of evidence that cancer rates in Chernobyl's fallout area ever deviated from the norm by a statistically significant amount.

Thyroid cancer in children?

In other words, there's no evidence anyone died from Chernobyl outside of the 34 killed directly by the explosion.

Premature death is only one possible undesirable consequence.

In contrast, ask yourself how many people die yearly because America is too scared to use nuclear energy so it has to constantly butt its nose into the Middle East for their oil.

As I have nowhere agued that burning oil is safe or without long-term consequences, this aspect of your argument is a strawman, i.e. irrelevant.

It is also inaccurate to assert that the US is obliged or compelled to butt its nose into the Middle East, or anywhere else, to feed its disproportionate demand for oil, or for any other reason.

 

[quadraginta]

In other words, there's no evidence anyone died from Chernobyl outside of the 34 killed directly by the explosion.

I'm pretty sure you're overstating the case. I believe a number of reactor personnel and emergency responders died from acute radiation exposure in the months following the accident, and their attributed deaths are pretty reliable. Of course, they were very much localized fatalities, and not that many, so your broader point still holds.

I have to agree that there is probably some overstatement. IIRC (memory only, no cites. ) there was a demonstrable increase in certain things, e.g. thyroid cancer, which could be attributed directly to Chernobyl, but in most cases of longer term disease that could have been caused by the additional radiation exposure any increase was lost in the noise of statistical error, and was thus fairly insignificant in a larger context.

 

[JihadJane]

Meanwhile, at the BBC:




2035: US officials have concluded that the Japanese warnings have been insufficient, and that, deliberately or not, they have understated the potential threat of what is taking place inside the nuclear facility, according to the New York Times. Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, earlier said he believed that all the water in the spent fuel pool at reactor 4 had boiled dry, leaving fuel rods stored there exposed. "We believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures," he told a Congressional committee.

2038: Experts warn that if radiation levels become too high, workers at the plant would not only be prevented from approaching reactor 4's spent fuel pond, but also the adjacent reactors, which also have malfunctioning cooling systems.

2046: Japan's foreign ministry has asked foreign diplomats and government officials to remain calm and "accurately convey information provided by Japanese authorities concerning the plant", according to NHK television.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is also inaccurate to assert that the US is obliged or compelled to butt its nose into the Middle East, or anywhere else, to feed its disproportionate demand for oil, or for any other reason.

What defines proportionality in demand for oil?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110316/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_earthquake_217

Mar 16

A nearly completed new power line could restore electric cooling systems in Japan's tsunami-crippled nuclear plant, its operator said Thursday, raising hopes of easing the crisis that has threatened a meltdown.

 

[Hindmost]

That can't happen. Technological industrial civilization needs energy first and foremost. As has been pointed out numerous times before, there is sufficient nuclear fuel supplies on Earth to sustain modern civilization for tens of thousands of years at a minimum. Unconventional oceanic uranium can last us for millions of years.

And if there's a problem that gets in the way, you yourself have admitted:



Except there is not such thing as being able to do too much work. Having an overabundance of energy allows us to choose less energy efficient solutions if other resources become strained.

Do you have a source for that first claim? My understanding was that nuclear fuel reserves would only last a century or two (not counting oceanic uranium, which might be impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way).



Burning spent fuel rods could - at least potentially - be worse than a meltdown.

I believe the first claim is based on new designs that are capable of burning spent fuel, and thus getting a lot more of the energy out of it.

As to the Uranium in sea water my initial thought (which could obviously be wrong) is that since the price of the fuel is such a small part of the total price of nuclear power, it seems very unlikely to be "impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way".

I remember (and one poster above pointed out) that some Japanese scientists have done it (get uranium out of sea water) through a process that is expensive but not necessarily too expensive.
Here's what I was able to turn up with google: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=DB27A7D7C09E5DBE9EFC7BE3E3FF7846.d03t04
which suggests that we still haven't figured out how to do so economically.

This sounds more promising: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5724/abs/280665a0.html

The link below is the latest information on the nuclear fuel cycle. It provides the answers on uranium supply etc. Turns out, not much work was done on the fuel cycle for the past 30 years or so. This report updates everything. There were some surprising findings on breeder reactors and the use of spent fuel

glenn

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/about/Dec 2010/forsberg oh.pdf

 

[Hindmost]

Based on this update, the plants need water and fast...

http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandeven...anese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

 

[macdoc]

Don't coal plants still work after a disaster? When you need power the most?

You think a coal plant will work after a 9.0 earthquake and a 7 m tsunami hits

"Most or all coal stocks will be washed out at many of the coal-fired power plants. Ports will be closed at least for a short time period until damage assessments can take place," another ship broker said.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...lants-shut-after-quake-BOJ-EUBVC?OpenDocument

and you have the knock on effects of transport affecting all the coal burning stations not just those in the affected area.
It is however faster to fix a coal facility once you have something to burn in it.