Merged nuclear power safe?

[r-j]

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/plutonium-spotted-far-from-fukushima.html

A paper out today in the journal Scientific Reports shows evidence that radioactive plutonium spread tens of kilometres from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

That's what several experts were saying at the time.

The new paper shows that minute quantities of plutonium from Fukushima have spread far from the plant. In samples taken to the northwest and in the J-Village, where workers live, the authors found trace amounts of plutonium in the surface soil (see map). Looking at the ratio of plutonium-241 to plutonium-239, they were able to conclude that the plutonium came from Fukushima rather than other sources, such as old nuclear-weapon tests.

The important thing is nobody died, so reactors are safe.

Nevertheless, the measurements are interesting. The distances at which the team finds the material imply that plutonium was ejected during the hydrogen explosions in the first days of the crisis. And the relatively low levels (around 10,000 times lower than Chernobyl) suggest that the heavily shielded concrete casings around the reactors did offer some protection from the worst of the fallout.

That's right. Just because four reactors blew up, it doesn't mean anything. So what if nuclear fuel was spread far and wide? Nobody died.

 

[Tapio]

Just to balance the view for those who might not click on the link above...from the same article:

The new work could lead people to believe that there is a health risk, but that is not the case.

And:

The additional exposure from inhaling this loose plutonium at the S2 site is around 0.5 millisieverts (mSv) over 50 years.

This dose — 0.5 mSv over half a century — is five times higher than the government’s current estimate for plutonium exposure from the accident, but it doesn’t mean there’s a health risk. Over the same period, the average person on Earth would receive 120 mSv from natural sources of radiation. Even for those who worry about low-dose radiation, it’s safe to say that this additional plutonium exposure won’t have an impact.

 

[shadron]

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/plutonium-spotted-far-from-fukushima.html

That's what several experts were saying at the time.

The important thing is nobody died, so reactors are safe.

That's right. Just because four reactors blew up, it doesn't mean anything. So what if nuclear fuel was spread far and wide? Nobody died.

You know, sarcasm and appeals to emotion don't really become you. Come out and say what you mean, and say it in comparable numbers, so we can judge whether it is a problem, or whether you're chasing chimeras. Things blow up all the time; was this one important for some reason? You imply it is; the article says it is not.

Why did you not quote the rest of the article as Tapio points out? In this thread I've gone to pains to make sure I have addressed the whole argument, avoiding cherry picking. I'm appalled that you don't seem to feel it is important to do so.

I refer you to this paper about plutonium toxicity: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/PlutoniumToxicity.pdf

 

[jimbob]

The first generation of UK nuclear reactors seem to have been built with a cavalier disregard for hazards and indeed risk. A friend of a colleague who worked in Dounrey suggested it was a hang over from needing to get things done at all costs during the war.

Dungeness, for example, is built on a rapidly eroding shingle beach...

 

[JihadJane]

'Fukushima-Daiichi: An Accident Waiting to Happen'

"The issue of regulatory capture is an issue that Japan and every energy producing country in the world is facing."

 

[r-j]

You know, sarcasm and appeals to emotion don't really become you.

Really? Because I thought it was posting sources, quoting information, and stating the facts that caused everyone to go quiet.

"So, the one thing the NUREG doesn't really do is tell you how to stop it, how to mitigate it, other than keeping water on it."

That pretty much sums it up right there. And it's a main reason why I do not support unsafe nuclear reactors, of which they are a good many around the world.

If you can't add on safety features to keep it from melting down in a power failure, then shut it down. Build a safe new one instead. Something.

But don't deny there is a problem.

Not with 10 ruined reactors in Japan. Several of which are still leaking.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A105.pdf

page 267 March 13 2011

It gets way more interesting, because they also detected cesium and iodine, so they knew the core damage was bad.

It's very annoying that the records simply stop right after that. We never find out what the real numbers were.

In fact, they are stonewalling on releasing all kinds of information still.

I can see there is going to be a continued confusion by a few people here. The historical documents, just released, show that during the early days of the disaster, the whole truth was not told, and when they did mention things, they did it in a way to obscure the meaning.
....
The untold part, is what level of radiation caused that much contamination on a ship 50 miles away. On Saturday March 12th

At the same time, we havehttp://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/13/c_13776090.htm

A sharp physics person, with math skills, could figure out the amount of radiation needed to produce that level of contamination 50 miles away.

Same for the ships readings.

Of course NOW we know the radiation being released was so much worse than anything that was being reported at the time. But that's what is so interesting about it. Seeing what was really going on, and comparing it to what the press was being told at the time. From the insiders POV

Along with the other evidence, it's looking like core material really was ejected from reactor three, from the huge explosion.

The new science blog link confirms what I said above. If plutonium was ejected during the explosions, then certainly everything else was.

Until now, every mention of such a thing was greeted with silence, disbelief or insults. Now that it is impossible to deny any longer, the tactic is to say it isn't really dangerous.

You know, exploding reactors that release nuclear fuel into the surrounding area, for 20 or 30 kilometers, that isn't really dangerous.

Disgusting. Seriously.

 

[Aepervius]

Really? Because I thought it was posting sources, quoting information, and stating the facts that caused everyone to go quiet.

The new science blog link confirms what I said above. If plutonium was ejected during the explosions, then certainly everything else was.

Until now, every mention of such a thing was greeted with silence, disbelief or insults. Now that it is impossible to deny any longer, the tactic is to say it isn't really dangerous.

You know, exploding reactors that release nuclear fuel into the surrounding area, for 20 or 30 kilometers, that isn't really dangerous.

Disgusting. Seriously.

Nobody answer you because we are disgusted with your cavalier use of quoting, are aquainted with the same quote mining tactic with creationist, and frankly are not impressed.

And the latest post of you is anotehr example of such.

So yeah. your argument up so far in this thread have been nigh worthless. Which is why you are met with silence. There is no convincing you with logic so... reallly... I admire the people which try anyway. You are back on /ignore.

 

[r-j]

Ignoring and denial seem to be the favored responses, when six reactor are destroyed, vast amounts of radiation released, over a hundred thousand people evacuated, and all kinds of safety issues are brought up.

It is like arguing with creationists.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Btw. it's gonna be a year since the tsunami. Go on Japan .. gambatte !

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ignoring and denial seem to be the favored responses, when six reactor are destroyed, vast amounts of radiation released, over a hundred thousand people evacuated, and all kinds of safety issues are brought up.

It is like arguing with creationists.

You're a hypocrite.

You demanded information from nuclear engineers. You were shown nuclear engineers declaring that the area around Fukushima was safe for human habitation.

You responded with appeals to emotion, personal incredulity and threats of physical violence.

 

[r-j]

other experts say if the vessel brakes it could be even worse than Chernobyl as the rods in Japan were much longer in use.

And that came from experts that are not only working in the postoffice of real experts.

We now know that yes indeed the experts were very very concerned about what was happening. Not a single voice is ever heard, in the 10 days of transcripts released so far, trying to convince anyone that the situation was safe. In fact, there is a LOT of conversation about how unsafe it was. You can hear the desperation in their conversations, as the Japanese refused all help, and the situation went completely out of control.

 

[r-j]

From March to June 2011, the global radionuclide network of the CTBTO, detected radionuclides emitted from the Fukushima nuclear power plant for a period of more than 6 weeks at all of the monitoring stations in the northern hemisphere. Very high concentrations were observed which in some cases even exceeded the functional capabilities of the high sensitivity monitoring systems.

Radioactivity is monitored on a global scale by the International Monitoring system (IMS) radionuclide network, which is being built for the Verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). This network consists of 80 particulate stations. In the period from April to July 2011, more than 40 stations detected radionuclides released from Fukushima NPP and more than 1600 samples contained radiation originating from this event. The data obtained from all stations of the IMS network in the northern hemisphere showed an almost constant ratio of Cs-137 and Cs-134.

Data from the CTBTO network showed that radioactivity from Fukushima was first detected on 12 March at the Takasaki CTBTO monitoring station in Japan indicating that the radioactive plume initially travelled in a south westerly direction. Several gaseous fission products like Cs-134, Cs-136, Cs-137, I-131, I-131, I-133, Te-132, Ba-136m and Xe-133 were detected. Due to the early observation of Te-132 it can be concluded that the fuel in the reactor core was damaged shortly after the earthquake and tsunami

Within 2 weeks the whole northern atmosphere was affected. The radioactive plume next travelled to eastern Russia (14 March) and then crossed the Pacific towards the North American continent to Europe and to Central Asia. The dominant radionuclides were xenon isotopes and especially Xe-133 together with I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137, and further short-lived radionuclides like Te-132 and I-132 were also detected.

Radioactive material released from Fukushima was detectable all across the northern hemisphere 12 to 15 days after the accident. A CTBTO monitoring station in Iceland detected radioactive isotopes indicating that the plume had reached Europe on 20 March. This was confirmed by European monitoring networks (Masson, et al., 2011). For the first four weeks, the radioactive materials remained confined to the northern hemisphere but by 13 April was detected at stations located in Australia, Fiji, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea indicating that it had reached the southern hemisphere (CTBTO, 2011).

http://enformable.com/2012/03/fukus...s-northern-hemisphere-15-days-after-disaster/

 

[Corsair 115]

From March to June 2011, the global radionuclide network of the CTBTO, detected radionuclides emitted from the Fukushima nuclear power plant for a period of more than 6 weeks at all of the monitoring stations in the northern hemisphere. Very high concentrations were observed which in some cases even exceeded the functional capabilities of the high sensitivity monitoring systems.

Radioactivity is monitored on a global scale by the International Monitoring system (IMS) radionuclide network, which is being built for the Verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). This network consists of 80 particulate stations. In the period from April to July 2011, more than 40 stations detected radionuclides released from Fukushima NPP and more than 1600 samples contained radiation originating from this event. The data obtained from all stations of the IMS network in the northern hemisphere showed an almost constant ratio of Cs-137 and Cs-134.

Data from the CTBTO network showed that radioactivity from Fukushima was first detected on 12 March at the Takasaki CTBTO monitoring station in Japan indicating that the radioactive plume initially travelled in a south westerly direction. Several gaseous fission products like Cs-134, Cs-136, Cs-137, I-131, I-131, I-133, Te-132, Ba-136m and Xe-133 were detected. Due to the early observation of Te-132 it can be concluded that the fuel in the reactor core was damaged shortly after the earthquake and tsunami

Within 2 weeks the whole northern atmosphere was affected. The radioactive plume next travelled to eastern Russia (14 March) and then crossed the Pacific towards the North American continent to Europe and to Central Asia. The dominant radionuclides were xenon isotopes and especially Xe-133 together with I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137, and further short-lived radionuclides like Te-132 and I-132 were also detected.

Radioactive material released from Fukushima was detectable all across the northern hemisphere 12 to 15 days after the accident. A CTBTO monitoring station in Iceland detected radioactive isotopes indicating that the plume had reached Europe on 20 March. This was confirmed by European monitoring networks (Masson, et al., 2011). For the first four weeks, the radioactive materials remained confined to the northern hemisphere but by 13 April was detected at stations located in Australia, Fiji, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea indicating that it had reached the southern hemisphere (CTBTO, 2011).

What I find interesting is that nowhere in the above is there a single example of a specific reading. Not one listing of the actual level measured in the appropriate units. Seems a rather important thing to have left out.

For those well-versed in the appropriate technical jargon, the actual report of the CTBTO can be read here in PDF form.

Here is a quote from the report's "Conclusions and Recommendations" section (emphasis added):

Maximum activity concentrations of radioactive particulates (dominated by I-131, Cs-137 and Cs-134) and noble gases (mainly Xe-133) were detected at the IMS station in Takasaki, Japan on the 16 March (collection stop) with values for I-131, Cs-137 and Cs-134 and noble gases below 1kBq/m3 (external dose rate factor 10,000 below typical natural radiation (2mSv per year)).

If I'm reading that correctly, then the highest readings recorded—from that particular measuring station in Japan itself and from mid-March of 2011—were still nonetheless 10,000 times below the rate of natural radiation exposure.

 

[shadron]

From March to June 2011, the global radionuclide network of the CTBTO, detected radionuclides emitted from the Fukushima nuclear power plant for a period of more than 6 weeks at all of the monitoring stations in the northern hemisphere. Very high concentrations were observed which in some cases even exceeded the functional capabilities of the high sensitivity monitoring systems.

Radioactivity is monitored on a global scale by the International Monitoring system (IMS) radionuclide network, which is being built for the Verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). This network consists of 80 particulate stations. In the period from April to July 2011, more than 40 stations detected radionuclides released from Fukushima NPP and more than 1600 samples contained radiation originating from this event. The data obtained from all stations of the IMS network in the northern hemisphere showed an almost constant ratio of Cs-137 and Cs-134.

Data from the CTBTO network showed that radioactivity from Fukushima was first detected on 12 March at the Takasaki CTBTO monitoring station in Japan indicating that the radioactive plume initially travelled in a south westerly direction. Several gaseous fission products like Cs-134, Cs-136, Cs-137, I-131, I-131, I-133, Te-132, Ba-136m and Xe-133 were detected. Due to the early observation of Te-132 it can be concluded that the fuel in the reactor core was damaged shortly after the earthquake and tsunami

Within 2 weeks the whole northern atmosphere was affected. The radioactive plume next travelled to eastern Russia (14 March) and then crossed the Pacific towards the North American continent to Europe and to Central Asia. The dominant radionuclides were xenon isotopes and especially Xe-133 together with I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137, and further short-lived radionuclides like Te-132 and I-132 were also detected.

Radioactive material released from Fukushima was detectable all across the northern hemisphere 12 to 15 days after the accident. A CTBTO monitoring station in Iceland detected radioactive isotopes indicating that the plume had reached Europe on 20 March. This was confirmed by European monitoring networks (Masson, et al., 2011). For the first four weeks, the radioactive materials remained confined to the northern hemisphere but by 13 April was detected at stations located in Australia, Fiji, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea indicating that it had reached the southern hemisphere (CTBTO, 2011).

http://enformable.com/2012/03/fukus...s-northern-hemisphere-15-days-after-disaster/

Well, r-j, that all sounds very onimous. What exactly does it means that:

- " In the period from April to July 2011, more than 40 stations detected radionuclides released from Fukushima NPP and more than 1600 samples contained radiation originating from this event." Other, that is, than that research into detecting unusual radioactivity in the background is getting pretty good?

- "The data obtained from all stations of the IMS network in the northern hemisphere showed an almost constant ratio of Cs-137 and Cs-134." Is that constancy something we need to worry about? Over three months?

- " Several gaseous fission products like Cs-134, Cs-136, Cs-137, I-131, I-131, I-133, Te-132, Ba-136m and Xe-133 were detected." You expected something else? Where's all that plutonium you were frothing over a couple of days ago, for example?

- "Due to the early observation of Te-132 it can be concluded that the fuel in the reactor core was damaged shortly after the earthquake and tsunami" Do tell. We do know that that happened. Is this more alarming than the fact it did happen? At least within a few days, right?

- " The dominant radionuclides were xenon isotopes and especially Xe-133 together with I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137, and further short-lived radionuclides like Te-132 and I-132 were also detected." And? again, you expected something else?

- and it spread everywhere.

But as Corsair mentions, no numbers. Because they would show how weak the effect was. When radio-iodine in milk rises by amounts in tens of bequerels per cubic meter of air, you really think that is a health risk? We were incapable of measuring that in the early 1990s.

All of that sounds really important, r-j. But what is the significance of it, vis-a-vis powering the next 50 years?

 

[shadron]

We now know that yes indeed the experts were very very concerned about what was happening. Not a single voice is ever heard, in the 10 days of transcripts released so far, trying to convince anyone that the situation was safe. In fact, there is a LOT of conversation about how unsafe it was. You can hear the desperation in their conversations, as the Japanese refused all help, and the situation went completely out of control.

Yes, they were, at least inasmuch as their telephone calls reveal. What did you expect? Is not caution the watchword that nuclear engineering has been geared for for the last 30 years? Isn't this what you would expect after Chernobyl and TMI? Would you be happier if they just laughed concern off and went back to golf?

What is it you accept as the proper response, r-j? I imagine that the response to Bhopal was quite a lot less fevered at the national level, but then it was just a lethal gas, not radioactivity, and of what use is body count, hey? [yeah, that was sarcastic.] Would you feel better if that was the sort of response a flooded nuclear power plant deserved?

And how about that complete loss of control? It must have been like a Mel Brooks movie all over the country, like a really major earthquake happened or something. And still, no one died from it. Why is that?

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, they were, at least inasmuch as their telephone calls reveal. What did you expect? Is not caution the watchword that nuclear engineering has been geared for for the last 30 years? Isn't this what you would expect after Chernobyl and TMI? Would you be happier if they just laughed concern off and went back to golf?

What is it you accept as the proper response, r-j? I imagine that the response to Bhopal was quite a lot less fevered. Would you feel better if that was the sort of response a flooded nuclear power plant deserved?

I would accept a proper state of the company would have been an effective and considered emergency plan. They didn't have one.
I would have expected that they immediately ask for as much outside help, both material and advisory, the moment they knew that the plant was running on batteries with a time to expire of about 12 hours.
I would have expected that after it was found that TEPCO had forged documents about plant maintenance and standards, they would have had the nuclear plants taken off them, or the TEPCO management would have been placed under strict governance, with all safety standards and plans revised.

 

[shadron]

I would accept a proper state of the company would have been an effective and considered emergency plan. They didn't have one.
I would have expected that they immediately ask for as much outside help, both material and advisory, the moment they knew that the plant was running on batteries with a time to expire of about 12 hours.
I would have expected that after it was found that TEPCO had forged documents about plant maintenance and standards, they would have had the nuclear plants taken off them, or the TEPCO management would have been placed under strict governance, with all safety standards and plans revised.

I would agree with what you say, but object, that we don't hear TEPCO or Japan's side of this conversation; all we are hearing is Americans, and that is what I was responding to.

 

[a_unique_person]

My bad, I would expect, not accept, that the company have ....

 

[jimbob]

I would accept a proper state of the company would have been an effective and considered emergency plan. They didn't have one.
I would have expected that they immediately ask for as much outside help, both material and advisory, the moment they knew that the plant was running on batteries with a time to expire of about 12 hours.
I would have expected that after it was found that TEPCO had forged documents about plant maintenance and standards, they would have had the nuclear plants taken off them, or the TEPCO management would have been placed under strict governance, with all safety standards and plans revised.

I would agree with what you say, but object, that we don't hear TEPCO or Japan's side of this conversation; all we are hearing is Americans, and that is what I was responding to.

There is plenty of evidence for TEPCO falsifying safety reports

for example within this article form the Wall Street Journal

We also know that there had been at least one earthquake-induced incident before that greenpeace flagged up as demonstrating the weakness in the cooling system that actually caused the disaster. I don't like linking to greenpeace as it is partisan, but in this case, given the date of 2007, it is valid.

Nobody thought to ask "What if another building falls onto it and it catches fire and the fire is left burning for 6 hours?"

Same thing goes for Fukishima, nobody thought to ask "What if a tsunami hits and it knocks out the pumps"
The anti nuke crowd has it right to point out that no matter how well planned or designed something may be, human error or even nature has a demonstrated ability of finding the flaw and exposing it.

It get even worse when humans with their ingenuity set their minds to finding the flaws and exploiting them.

What the pro nuke crowd has got right is that even when these flaws are exposed we have a demonstrated ability to contain and manage them. 3 mile, Chernobyl, Fukishima, have done relatively little damage.

Long story short it's an acceptable risk. Accidents are going to happen, people are going to die, the land and air will be poisoned, absolutely. That's the price of doing business and that's nothing new.

Actually that issue had been raised:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...years-ago-in-u-s-nuclear-agency-s-report.html

In a 1990 report, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency responsible for ensuring the safety of the country’s power plants, identified earthquake-induced diesel generator failure and power outage leading to failure of cooling systems as one of the “most likely causes” of nuclear accidents from an external event.

While the report was cited in a 2004 statement by Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, adequate measures to address the risk were not taken by Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the plant in Fukushima prefecture, said Jun Tateno, a former researcher at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency and professor at Chuo University.

There are PDFs that one can find from googling around that, but that story seems a pretty fair summary.

Or indeed Greenpeace in 2007:

Earthquake, fire and nuclear leak in Japan

It's hard to call the residents of Kashiwazaki lucky. Hundreds were injured by the quake, at least nine have died, thousands are in emergency shelters. But, if any of the four working reactors had lost power to their coolant system, it could have gone much worse. From the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center:

Even after automatic shutdown, the fuel in the reactor core is still extremely hot, so it is necessary to maintain a continual flow of coolant. If it is not maintained, the fuel could melt, leading to the release of highly radioactive material into the environment. Under some circumstances, it could also result in an explosion.

Despite the potential seriousness of this fire, TEPCO failed to announce whether the transformer continued to operate, or whether the emergency generator started up.

According to Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, TEPCO admitted its disaster response measures did not function successfully, and that there were only four workers available to extinguish the fire, which burned for almost two hours.

 

[jimbob]

From that WSJ article I linded to above:

The Fukushima Daiichi plant has a black mark on its record from earlier in the last decade, when a scandal involving falsified safety records led to parent company Tepco briefly shutting down its entire nuclear fleet in Japan. In 2002, Tepco admitted to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that it had falsified the results of safety tests on the containment vessel of the No. 1 reactor, which is now one of three reactors that workers are struggling to keep from overheating. The test took place in 1991-1992.

The scandal was the latest in a string of nuclear safety records cover-ups by Tepco, including the revelation that the company's doctoring of safety records concerning reactor shrouds, a part of the reactors themselves, in the 1980s through the early 1990s. Five top executives resigned after the company admitted to having falsified safety.

In 2003, Tepco shut down all of its nuclear reactors for inspections, acknowledging the systematic cover-up of inspection data showing cracks in reactors.

Japanese regulators already have some credibility issues after previous episodes in which the strength of the response was called into question.

In Japan in 1999, an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction at a uranium-reprocessing plant killed two employees and spewed radioactive neutrons over the countryside. Government officials later said safety equipment at the plant was missing and the people involved lacked training, adding that their assessment of the accident's seriousness was "inadequate."