• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

pipelineaudio said:
Can you help answer this?

"That is a sensible balanced kind of view of the situation, but I think the author is not up with the current data.

He says several times that the danger is not extreme because the primary containment has not been breached. This would be comforting if true.

Unfortunately the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency say that they are detecting cesium and iodine isotopes outside the Fukushima reactor. "
Click to expand...
It has been explained that these came out when some of the excess pressure inside the vessels was released. The detection doesn't necessarily mean the vessels in the various reactors of the plant have lost their integrity and based on current reports (NHK) they are still functioning as containment for the reactors' fuel elements.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
The only reason Chernobyl went up is because there was an absolutely obscene lack of adherence to safety protocols,
Click to expand...

I know. But that wasn't my point. My point was that this has never been seen as a problem prior to it happening. More modern plants are now build in a way that even the most malicious and/or brainless operator behavior would not result in a catastrophic accident.

and the only reason the meltdown actually mattered was because the Soviet workers involved didn't do their jobs properly.
Click to expand...

See above.

The plan in Japan survived in that same situation. People did their jobs right, but that didn't work out, so they might as well not have bothered.

That is a good thing! I am glad the modern plants are as safe as they are. I am not against the continued use of nuclear power, either.

But the attitude behind the "it's safe"-mantra worries me. I am still in favor of the plants because of the stuff I get to read here, rather than what is going on in the media and, indeed, from the communications of those running the plants. Because they don't tell me why I should trust their operators to always do the right thing. And I don't trust them. But know I know that the plants don't really care all that much anymore. THAT is what I want to hear them say.

Don't tell me the plant will be fine.
Tell me that if the plant gets hit by a major earthquake and if then the emergency power generators are destroyed by a tsunami and if then the power generator trucks don't fit through the gates of the plant and if then all the operators have to stay home with a flue and if then the core melts down the most likely consequence is that my electricity bill will be marginally higher in the foreseeable future.

(But I guess i am not representative of the general population here ...)
 
a_unique_person said:
The fact is, it is bad, and it looks bad, and it was avoidable. Nuclear power could have emerged from this looking much more solid and safe if the avoidable bit was done right. That the plants survived a shock worse than they were designed for is not much comfort when there are claims that there have already been quakes that have exceeded their rating. If that is the case, then they have been operating outside their limits for years, which is clearly not safe either way.

Now it's been set back ten years or more. The focus on it when it hasn't actually killed anyone yet, but probably tens of thousands are dead due to the quake is absurd, but the public don't seem so interested in that for some reason.
Click to expand...

And in the mean time the refinery leaking and the other infrastructure which released dangerous chemical in water are giving a free pass.
 
Rasmus said:
As an aside, I remember that before Chernobyl it was usually claimed that reactors were safe and nothing could realistically happen. Yes, there was a theoretical chance that many, many things could possibly go wrong all at once at the things would blow up, but that just wasn't realistic.

Then, one of the things did blow up.

After that, it was new and shiny, western and modern plants that could not possibly blow up. Chernobyl was different for a vast number of reasons - all of which may well be accurate. But I am truly wondering what kind of accidents and idiot users have not been foreseen in the oh-so-save western nuclear power-plants.
Click to expand...

Something can be safe , but not 100% perfect and still have a risk reminder. Eating food in western country is safe. But people still die of food poisoning even in Germany/France, and I would trust hygienic condition much more in German restaurants , than say, Africa or Moscow.

And yes the Russian had an outdated model, *and* intentionally did run into meltdown to simulate an incident.

The problem is that in most people head and in the media, nuclear reactor are all equal. They are not. You can't compare a gen 1 reactor with a gen 2 or even a gen 3. Different method of cool down, moderation, and control aren't comparable. Nuclear reaction and fuel used are not comparable. Etc...

That said, the politic of green to block new nuclear plant is contra productive as it force the older less safe model to be used.
 
Aepervius said:
And in the mean time the refinery leaking and the other infrastructure which released dangerous chemical in water are giving a free pass.
Click to expand...
Not from where I'm sitting they aren't. The frequent updates on numerous issues related to the earthquakes and tsunami I have been seeing in the 24 hour a day coverage on live Japanese TV included items on pollution and dangers from the burning refinery, broken tankers, wrecked cars etc. Only this afternoon there was an item about the fact that many (petro-chemical) pollutants were washed over crop fields because of the debris carried by the tsunami.
 
Bluespaceoddity said:
Not from where I'm sitting they aren't. The frequent updates on numerous issues related to the earthquakes and tsunami I have been seeing in the 24 hour a day coverage on live Japanese TV included items on pollution and dangers from the burning refinery, broken tankers, wrecked cars etc. Only this afternoon there was an item about the fact that many (petro-chemical) pollutants were washed over crop fields because of the debris carried by the tsunami.
Click to expand...

Here around you would be hard pressed to see any article or headline beside the "nukular meltdown world ending" problem.
 
Aepervius said:
Something can be safe , but not 100% perfect and still have a risk reminder. Eating food in western country is safe. But people still die of food poisoning even in Germany/France, and I would trust hygienic condition much more in German restaurants , than say, Africa or Moscow.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, I know all that.

But if you were to tell me that all food was absolutely safe I would no longer trust you nor would I trust your food.

And yes the Russian had an outdated model, *and* intentionally did run into meltdown to simulate an incident.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. But before they did that it was generally held to be impossible/unthinkable.

The old saying tells us that if you build something fool proof someone will come along with a better kind of fool. I want the people responsible for powerplants to both understand and admit that!

The problem is that in most people head and in the media, nuclear reactor are all equal. They are not. You can't compare a gen 1 reactor with a gen 2 or even a gen 3. Different method of cool down, moderation, and control aren't comparable. Nuclear reaction and fuel used are not comparable. Etc...

That said, the politic of green to block new nuclear plant is contra productive as it force the older less safe model to be used.
Click to expand...

All of that I agree with.

It might be that it is the better way for dealing with the general public, but I feel like people try to fool me - and they shouldn't feel they have to try and fool me.
 
Aepervius said:
Here around you would be hard pressed to see any article or headline beside the "nukular meltdown world ending" problem.
Click to expand...
That is my understanding from reading forum posts and seeing headlines in foreign press reports but what I wrote is based on seeing the opinion makers at work in the country where defining future power supplies for the region will be part of the rebuilding efforts. An admittedly tiny sample but I still thought it might be worth it to insert that perspective.
 
Rasmus said:
Yes, yes, yes, I know all that.

But if you were to tell me that all food was absolutely safe I would no longer trust you nor would I trust your food.



Yes, I know that. But before they did that it was generally held to be impossible/unthinkable.

The old saying tells us that if you build something fool proof someone will come along with a better kind of fool. I want the people responsible for powerplants to both understand and admit that!



All of that I agree with.

It might be that it is the better way for dealing with the general public, but I feel like people try to fool me - and they shouldn't feel they have to try and fool me.
Click to expand...

All of which places the experts and politicians in a difficult situation because on one hand there is no way they will be able to explain the true situation to the mass of the general public in a way that they will understand and believe.

There are so many issues here that its hard to pinpoint exactly what they should be doing.

They are using technical terms like 'meltdown' that the public has a very different perception of the meaning than the experts do.

They are having to reassure the public that there is no great danger and at the same time still be seen to be taking it seriously enough

They have to convince the public they are safe when all they know about nuclear accidents and explosions are nuclear bombs and Chernobyl.

Meanwhile the media and hankering for the next big disaster and convincing the public the plant is about to take out half of Asia.

I'm not sure quite how you manage a situation like this when dealing with a population that is largely scientifically illiterate.
 
§ The plant is safe now and will stay safe.
§ Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.
§ Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.
§ There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.
§ The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.
§ The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water
§ The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.
§ Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.
§ The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)​

See these posts for some detailed pictures and explanations.​




 
Rasmus said:
Yes, I know that. But before they did that it was generally held to be impossible/unthinkable.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't. It was not only known to be possible and thinkable but it was also regarded as so unsafe that no similar reactors were built in the west.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I hope you bought that used.

Because otherwise, you gave money to histories 2nd bloodiest genocidal regime and the one responsible for the most and the worst nuclear disasters.

Built with nuclear energy and farts gobs of carbon with every mile driven.
Click to expand...

That's why I called him a hypocrit.

theprestige said:
So, BD, what's the Earth doing that's so important, that it'd be better off doing it if you weren't around?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent question, actually. I'm going to use that in the future, if you don't mind.
 
WildCat said:
No, it wasn't. It was not only known to be possible and thinkable but it was also regarded as so unsafe that no similar reactors were built in the west.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But, again, this is not what I remember hearing about reactors then.

(I feel safe. Really, I do. This is just a minor complaint about communication and one I have no easy solution for.)
 
Belz... said:
Same here. I'm looking at all that destruction and thinking "damn, these things are built to withstand anything."
Click to expand...

Yeah. They're pretty much the only thing standing around there. They weathered the 9.0 Richter scale shock just fine; it was the tsunami that was about as high as our apartment building that took out the plant's back-up power source -- a conventional power source, naturally.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Built with nuclear energy and farts gobs of carbon with every mile driven.
Click to expand...

... to a degree where selling it for scraps and getting something more modern and energy efficient might well be the greener option of the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom