• 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?

It's true that I haven't followed the events closely. But that was easy to remedy. The back up power areas, and the electrical areas were flooded by the tsunami. After the earthquake knocked down the protective wall.

They couldn't hook up the back up power (which was delivered of course!) because the rooms were flooded. That is why there was no power to the pumps. That led to the first explosion, and after that there was no power or pumping to any of the other critical areas, and the other explosions and fires followed that.

If they had built the power rooms and electrical switching areas higher up, rather than counting on the wall for protection, this would not have happened. It looks like a serious design problem.

Isn't that what always ends up being the real problem? Be it a space shuttle exploding, or a bridge falling down.
 
bobdroege7 said:
was precautionary, is now required, sorry you are wrong.
Click to expand...

And again you have no evidence of that.

The radiation levels around the plant are coming from radioactive materials that are outside the systems designed to contain them.
Click to expand...

And yet they are still in the hundred of micro Sv by the plant perimeter.

The situation is worrying, but saying it *require* evacuation up to 20 km (10 km are in-home staying not evacutaion), is definitively wrong. But as precaution measure it make sense if situation go from bad to worst.
 
sts60 said:
Because that's what backup systems do. The only thing between a safe flight and your airliner crashing is the backup systems.
Click to expand...

True, but an aircraft with, say, a couple of engines failed, can divert to the nearest airport and once it's on the ground, it becomes safe.

The same kind of option isn't available for a nuclear reactor.
 
I can just hear it now. "Who knew an earthquake could knock down a wall?", and "Nobody expected a tsunami to flood the critical areas!".

The next power plant to go, we will hear the same cries. "Who would have expected that to happen?".
 
The people already trying hard to say this was unexpected, they make me sick. This is exactly what many people have been saying could happen, for a very long time.
 
r-j said:
It's true that I haven't followed the events closely. But that was easy to remedy. The back up power areas, and the electrical areas were flooded by the tsunami. After the earthquake knocked down the protective wall.

They couldn't hook up the back up power (which was delivered of course!) because the rooms were flooded. That is why there was no power to the pumps. That led to the first explosion, and after that there was no power or pumping to any of the other critical areas, and the other explosions and fires followed that.

If they had built the power rooms and electrical switching areas higher up, rather than counting on the wall for protection, this would not have happened. It looks like a serious design problem.

Isn't that what always ends up being the real problem? Be it a space shuttle exploding, or a bridge falling down.
Click to expand...

Ok, so now you would have a design with a generator the size of a small house/garage up on, what, stilts? A solid platform? And the fuel cells for these generators, have them also up on stilts/platform?

The point is that this wasn't a bad design. It was a "perfect storm" that managed to hit the weak link. That's all. Hell, if the tsunami hadn't wiped out most of Japan's infrastructure, there would probably have been the correct mobile generators on site within the 8 hours the batteries lasted.
 
r-j said:
The people already trying hard to say this was unexpected, they make me sick. This is exactly what many people have been saying could happen, for a very long time.
Click to expand...

The idiot which say this could happen did not point finger at a japan plant, but at all plant in the world including one not in tsunami area. Please don't make me laugh. I can also play the cassandra and predict that *somewhere*, *somewhen* *something bad* will happen.

We are speaking of a very rare event. It will almost certainly be taken into account by Japan in future. But playing hindsight Wambulance is almost as sick.
 
True, but an aircraft with, say, a couple of engines failed, can divert to the nearest airport and once it's on the ground, it becomes safe.

The same kind of option isn't available for a nuclear reactor.

A twin-engine airliner with a couple of engines failed is in serious trouble. They don't glide that well.

Anyway, my point was that it's a little silly to complain about redundant backups being the "only thing", well, backing up the primary systems, especially in a 40-year-old design.

Yes, I agree that there seem to be better ways to implement the backups; I can think of a few off the top of my head. I also note that there are other designs now that don't even need power for emergency safing.

But I also believe that I plan to learn more about the systems and exactly what did and didn't happen before I render my verdict. (Not that anyone will care about it when I do.)
 
ceptimus said:
True, but an aircraft with, say, a couple of engines failed, can divert to the nearest airport and once it's on the ground, it becomes safe.

The same kind of option isn't available for a nuclear reactor.
Click to expand...
There have been aircraft crashes that are exactly analagous to the nuclear disaster. The one I brought up was the DC-10 disaster where all three backup hydraulic systems failed and it became a game of insanity for the pilots to try and steer the thing safetly. They came remarkable close to actually landing the plane too. Engineering history is kind of interesting in this regard. There are designs where the backup and redundant systems were remarkable well designed like the Brookyln bridge and then there are times where it all goes to hell.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
There have been aircraft crashes that are exactly analagous to the nuclear disaster. The one I brought up was the DC-10 disaster where all three backup hydraulic systems failed and it became a game of insanity for the pilots to try and steer the thing safetly. They came remarkable close to actually landing the plane too.
Click to expand...

Those pilots did a world tour of nuclear plants recounting their methods of thinking when their procedures had no answers to the problems.

The presentation they gave was excellent.
 
Rather than build a 25 foot wall, they could have simply built the power systems, and electrical rooms a hundred feet higher up. It's not like the land there is flat.

What kind of mentality is in place that builds critical systems down near the ocean, then builds a wall around them? Obviously they built the wall to protect from tsunami. Yes, hindsight is twenty twenty, but when you find hundreds of articles and protest about the danger, that was long before the disaster, it isn't hindsight.

These same issues exist at many other plants, including ones in the US. It's not hindsight when somebody wrote a detailed description of it, far in advance.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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?
Click to expand...

They have been saying things all along like, "it's only a level four", well it's not, it's now being called a level 6, "It's not Chernobyl", that's not really saying much, "It's been managed well", it's been managed poorly, "it's only a hydrogen explosion, and it's only superficial", it's an explosion at a nuclear plant right on top of the containment vessel, and it's possibly compromised the integrity of one of the vessels, as well as compromised the integrity of the support infrastructure needed to cool the systems when AC power becomes available again.

The systemic problem seems to be TEPCO, which has been caught in the past falsifying tests and ignoring concerns, and being caught in an emergency situation with a rabbit in the headlights look. They have continually misrepresented the situation to the outside world, and have not asked for help from day one when they clearly needed all the help they could get. That their solution to the lack of AC was to wait a week for a new powerline to be built is absurd farce. Surely somewhere in the world, a world which is connected with heavly lift aircraft, there were the skills and resources available to get AC going onsite in the early days of this situation before it got so out of control.

And that is what this situation is, it is out of control. Saying that it can't physically get as bad as Chernbyl is ignoring the fact that they could not have made this situation as bad as it is if they had tried, given the technology they have to work with.
 
Skwinty said:
Those pilots did a world tour of nuclear plants recounting their methods of thinking when their procedures had no answers to the problems.

The presentation they gave was excellent.
Click to expand...
Wait really?
What kind of mentality is in place that builds critical systems down near the ocean, then builds a wall around them? Obviously they built the wall to protect from tsunami. Yes, hindsight is twenty twenty, but when you find hundreds of articles and protest about the danger, that was long before the disaster, it isn't hindsight.
Click to expand...
I pretty much only found two pieces of information that actually provided any sort of hindsight to the situation in Japan. And even in that case the problem is that it becomes a game of he said she said.
That their solution to the lack of AC was to wait a week for a new powerline to be built is absurd farce. Surely somewhere in the world, a world which is connected with heavly lift aircraft, there were the skills and resources available to get AC going onsite in the early days of this situation before it got so out of control.
Click to expand...
You really don't know much about electrical engineering do you. Most of the world's generators would probably end up blowing the cooling systems to smithereens. Hell Japan is special in the regard that the generators located in half the counntry would blow up the cooling systems.
And that is what this situation is, it is out of control. Saying that it can't physically get as bad as Chernbyl is ignoring the fact that they could not have made this situation as bad as it is if they had tried, given the technology they have to work with.
Click to expand...
Hah!!!! Says the guy whose suggesting that they physically blow up the cooling systems.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
And again you have no evidence of that.



And yet they are still in the hundred of micro Sv by the plant perimeter.

The situation is worrying, but saying it *require* evacuation up to 20 km (10 km are in-home staying not evacutaion), is definitively wrong. But as precaution measure it make sense if situation go from bad to worst.
Click to expand...

All right, lets say that it is 300 microsieverts at the plant perimeter, or the edge of the companies control and it is public or private ground on the other side of the fence.

Public or private owned by other than TEPCO.

And it is 300 microsieverts on both sides of the fence. Is it ok to assume that?

There will be a dose of 262 Rem per year on the other side of the fence which is 50 times higher than the allowable limit for radiation workers in the US, and an amount of radiation that would be considered to put one at a rather high risk for harm.

It is also 500 times higher than the allowable limit for exposure to the public, therefore the evacuation is required.

Look up the limits for radiation exposure, make yourself more informed.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm

Oops, I was wrong, it is 2620 times higher.

That's evidence, are you happy now?
 
a_unique_person said:
"It's been managed well", it's been managed poorly,
Click to expand...


I don't know AUP, I don't think that there has been anything more they could have done on the site, the actions of the staff have been heroic in a very desperate struggle.

Though, at the time the tsunamis wiped out the onsite power, they should have said this is going to be a 6 and the reactors are going to melt-down, can anyone give us any help.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
Actually, I think it is.
Click to expand...

Then somebody, or a lot of somebodies, are really stupid. They build six nuclear reactors on the ocean, on flat land? In Japan? And the only thing protecting it from complete disaster is a 25 foot high wall?

And yes, if you are building a critical system next to the ocean in an earthquake prone area, you put the critical system a hundred feet up. And you build them so they don't fall down, flood or blow up.

Because otherwise....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom