• 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?

Japanese authorities said a crack has appeared in the steel-and-concrete containment vessel of the plant's No. 3 reactor, which now seems to be leaking radioactive steam.
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134582068/workers-evacuate-part-of-japanese-nuclear-plant

I don't recall reading about this last night or this morning. Did I miss this while at work? Is this accurate? If so, what does this do to our worst case scenario? What does it do to our best case scenario? What does it do to our most likely scenario? What does it do to our error bars?

I've seen numerous posts accusing the media of fear mongering, but I've asked questions about specifics in previous reports, and I've received almost no real answers. From a non-expert point of view, things do not appear to be getting better. Media may be fear mongering to some extent, but to a non-expert, it appears that things are getting worse. Various reports have cited specific events and/or challenges. I've asked questions about specific articles (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6980311#post6980311, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6979936#post6979936), and others have too (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6981133&postcount=188), but these questions have remained largely unanswered.

Those annoyed with fear mongering should appreciate my questions. I likely represent a typical non-expert trying to accurately understand this situation. If you want to make a difference, the types of questions I've asked (here, and in the Nuclear safety thread) would be ideal topics for discussion. If you just want to complain, that's your right, but please understand that you're not part of the solution. In fact, to a non-expert like me, you're part of the problem.

I've seen some mud slinging in this thread and/or the related nuclear safety thread, so I'd like to point out that I'm a huge proponent of any non-fossil fuel based energy source. That being said, I'm also a huge fan of assessing reality as it is. I don't want to look at this event through rose-colored glasses just because I support nuclear energy. Honestly, to a non-expert like me, it doesn't appear many here share this desire. I could be 100% wrong. But when it appears that the majority of posts concern alleged media hysteria, while questions about new developments remain unanswered, the non-expert will infer confirmation bias; folk appear too interested in defending claims of fear mongering to notice and properly assess new data.

I'm likely wrong. I'm not an expert. Please demonstrate it.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I wonder how those folks would react if they learned that the U.S. Navy currently has in service 82 vessels that are nuclear-powered. And sometimes some of those nuclear reactors are sitting in port in San Diego, Norfolk, and other places...
Click to expand...

Arrrgh.....should have mentioned that myself........
 
OMGturtle actually it is really bad, but not catastrophal. The difference ebtween the two ? Radioactive material spread over inhabited surface, or at least outside the plant. From what I can tell up to now it has been going bad to worst without reaching the level of catastrophal. I just hope it stays this way.
 
This seems to be the latest JAIF status estimate update:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300350525P.pdf

In line with earlier status reports, reactors at Fukushima DAINI remain in cold shut down. Contrary to earlier reports posted in JREF threads based on CNN broadcasts the evacuation area radius for this second plant as implemented by the Japanese Government remains 10 km - as it has been for days. (Recommendations for citizens of other nations staying in Japan issued by representatives of their respective governments notwithstanding)

That seems to conform to TV reports on Japanese TV I've been watching from approx. 17:00 JST which barely mention DAINI but show that reactor related problems remain confined to the Fukushima DAIICHI complex. (As before corrections are welcomed).

[edit for clarity - The evacuation area around Fukushima Daiichi has also not changed but has been 20 km with residents of the area between 20-30 km being advised to remain indoors. (Some residents did not survive this measure but that was due to lack of medical supplies/food/heating for elderly people in those areas - not directly radiation related.]

I have not seen any updates on the integrity of the containment vessels beyond what was already suspected yesterday. Newer reports about cracks appear to me to be speculation about the walls of the spent fuel pool - particularly in building 3- and not about the reactor or containment vessels of the reactors. (Once again corrections welcome.)
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The last thing we need is more coal power, we should be transitioning to a mix of new technology renewables and new technology nuclear.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that in fact that's not really a very viable mix as you have two technologies that are only suitable for base load.

If you are going to have a high % of renewables in the mix then you need to have flexibility in your other systems to cope with their intermittency. Nuclear power doesn't really do flexible, as far as I know.

I'm a supporter of renewables and I'm not anti-nuclear but if you believe nuclear is a safe, clean and cost effective option for power then I think you would advocate providing the whole energy mix with it. After all, why use renewables if you don't need to?

I am becoming a bit more skeptical about the whole renewable energy thing to be honest - I like the technologies, I like the economic opportunities in developing and manufacturing the systems, I'm just not sure they are commercially the best option for producing electricity.

For the strongly pro-nuclear, then I can see their reasoning. However, if we are serious about nuclear power then we need to be as happy about having a nuclear reactor in Nigeria, Syria, Khazakstan, etc as we are in Japan, the US and Europe. It seems we might also need to factor into the costs the expense of an ultra-costly accident and cleanup once every so often.

I wonder sometimes exactly what energy options the Greens do support as it seems they are anti-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear, don't want wind farms spoiling the scenery, don't want offshore renewables affecting marine life, and so on and so on.
 
a_unique_person said:
Apparently, that stretch of coast has seen similar tsunamis in 1896 and 1933, so the current tsunami is hardly a 1,000 year event, and should have been catered for.
Click to expand...

The fact that there had been others is exactly how we know that this was an extra-ordinary event. The area had sea-walls that had been specifically built to prevent tsunami from doing what this one did, it when right over the top of them. Safe zones had been defined based on previous events, this one went over a mile past those points!

This tsunami was way bigger than anyone has seen before, and is causing scientists worldwide to reconsider how tsumani act. Compared to the Boxing Day event in Indonesia, this tsunami was a monster, it wasn't just high (30feet, 10m) but it was big, it had a surge that lasted over ten minutes in some areas, getting as far inland as 10km, the 2004 one only got 2km inland, a 1/5 of this one. This is why it is considered a 1 in 1,000 year event.
 
Does anyone know how high the sea wall at the affected nuclear power plants is/was? I've heard 6.5m mentioned somewhere and that the wave was 7m high at those points.
 
The most nonsensical thing I've ever read about nuclear:

Bonasera says, “…I see no reasons to have nuclear power plants at all, both economically and ecologically. Actual power plants in the US have a very low efficiency (less than 1%) and they are aging, similar to the ones in Japan and other parts of the world. It is time to dismiss most of them.”
Click to expand...

Link
 
Latest update from the World Nuclear News website, along with some solid radiation level readings...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Attempts_to_refill_fuel_ponds_1703111.html
… peaking at 400 millisieverts per hour (40,000 mrem/hour) on the inland side of unit 3, and 100 millisieverts per hour (10,000 mrem/hour) on the inland side of unit 4. At the highest exposure rate, a nuclear worker or soldier could remain in the area for less than 40 minutes before leaving the site, unable to return. …

… Despite high levels of radiation close to the units, levels detected at the edge of the power plant site have been steadily decreasing.

17 March, 4.00pm --> 0.64 millisieverts per hour (64 mrem/hour)
17 March, 9.00am --> 1.47 millisieverts per hour (147 mrem/hour)
16 March, 7.00pm --> 1.93 millisieverts per hour (193 mrem/hour)
16 March, 12.30pm --> 3.39 millisieverts per hour (339 mrem/hour)
Click to expand...

It should also be noted that if the radiation levels are that low at the edge of the power plant site, then they are most likely well within acceptable levels by the time you get to the edge of the evacuation zone, 30+ km away. And there’s certainly no danger to people here in the United States.

In addition, a good reference on the levels of radiation exposure (and related health effects) can be found here - http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#anyamount – note that those values are in rems, whereas most of the exposure we’ve been referencing in the last few days and in these reports is in milli-rems (mrems). Bottom line: the people who are going to be affected the most are the workers right there on site, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are getting a potentially lethal dose; as for everyone else, I think the danger is pretty minimal.

Having said all of that, the situation most definitely sucks. It is going to be an immense expense to clean up all that crap.

Cheers - MM
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I wonder sometimes exactly what energy options the Greens do support as it seems they are anti-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear, don't want wind farms spoiling the scenery, don't want offshore renewables affecting marine life, and so on and so on.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering about that as well, for the same reasons. To add to that, sometimes they can't build wind farms because there are supposedly endangered species on the land where they want to build it. Even one such animal found is enough to stop the whole project. Guess who is responsible for that law? Right, the greens.

Renewable energy sounds like a nice concept, no doubt about that. But i have the impression that they did not even start to think this through. For now they are stuck in the "But solar cells and wind turbines work!" mode, and are unable or unwilling to think about the next steps.

And it's not only a problem of building things like wind parks. The much bigger problem is the storage of the produced energy, so it is available when there is no sun or wind. They would go berzerk if one would flood an entire small town to use that space for a hydroelectric storage facility.

That's what i think is so annoying in the whole debate, at least over here. I wish i had solutions for these problems, but i'm afraid i don't. Unless we are able to efficiently store the energy, get much, much more efficient solar cells, etc., it simply isn't a viable option for our complete energy demands yet.

Greetings,

Chris
 
The press doesn't seem to understand that the radiation dosage that nuclear plant workers get on the job is measured and tracked. Or that the dose required to produce medical effects over the short term is well known.
 
Kestrel said:
The press doesn't seem to understand that the radiation dosage that nuclear plant workers get on the job is measured and tracked. Or that the dose required to produce medical effects over the short term is well known.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you would think by now that a responsible media would have figured out how to learn at least a little science so they can inform people of the basics of dosage & the related health effects :rolleyes:
 
MattusMaximus said:
Latest update from the World Nuclear News website, along with some solid radiation level readings...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Attempts_to_refill_fuel_ponds_1703111.html


It should also be noted that if the radiation levels are that low at the edge of the power plant site, then they are most likely well within acceptable levels by the time you get to the edge of the evacuation zone, 30+ km away. And there’s certainly no danger to people here in the United States.

In addition, a good reference on the levels of radiation exposure (and related health effects) can be found here - http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#anyamount – note that those values are in rems, whereas most of the exposure we’ve been referencing in the last few days and in these reports is in milli-rems (mrems). Bottom line: the people who are going to be affected the most are the workers right there on site, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are getting a potentially lethal dose; as for everyone else, I think the danger is pretty minimal.

Having said all of that, the situation most definitely sucks. It is going to be an immense expense to clean up all that crap.

Cheers - MM
Click to expand...

So apart from being a danger to the workers and soldiers, this is pretty much as the pro-nuke people have been saying all along, a storm in a rather hazardous teacup?
 
Kestrel said:
The press doesn't seem to understand that the radiation dosage that nuclear plant workers get on the job is measured and tracked. Or that the dose required to produce medical effects over the short term is well known.
Click to expand...


Last night the CTV national news in a report used the term "suicidal" to describe the fact that the workers in the plant were still there, working to resolve the problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom