Japan Fukushima nuclear thread
Discussion
Not sure whether this has been posted yet but here is the official IAEA report.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59353049/Cn200-Final-Fuk...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59353049/Cn200-Final-Fuk...
That flooded plant at Fort Calhoun looks a bit dodgy - lets hope they keep the cooling going. At least it wasn't smashed up by an earthquake just before..
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nebraska-residents-danger...
I found this article about Fukushima, which isn't looking good at all. 97,000 becquerels/kg were recorded in some dry straw in the region. That's 1kg of straw through off 97,000 particles per second (like a 100kHz noisy note).
Additionally have a read of this: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think
For people who have no mouse:
There is also more danger from Unit 4:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nebraska-residents-danger...
I found this article about Fukushima, which isn't looking good at all. 97,000 becquerels/kg were recorded in some dry straw in the region. That's 1kg of straw through off 97,000 particles per second (like a 100kHz noisy note).
Additionally have a read of this: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think
For people who have no mouse:
article said:
Gundersen, a licensed reactor operator with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, managing and coordinating projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the US, says the Fukushima nuclear plant likely has more exposed reactor cores than commonly believed.
"Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."
TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.
"The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"
Even though the plant is now shut down, fission products such as uranium continue to generate heat, and therefore require cooling.
"The fuels are now a molten blob at the bottom of the reactor," Gundersen added. "TEPCO announced they had a melt through. A melt down is when the fuel collapses to the bottom of the reactor, and a melt through means it has melted through some layers. That blob is incredibly radioactive, and now you have water on top of it. The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."
Independent scientists have been monitoring the locations of radioactive "hot spots" around Japan, and their findings are disconcerting.
"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl," said Gundersen. "The data I'm seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man's-land for Chernobyl. We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can't clean all this up. We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl."
It looks like the Seattle area is also being hit with radioactive air filters even there "Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."
TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.
"The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"
Even though the plant is now shut down, fission products such as uranium continue to generate heat, and therefore require cooling.
"The fuels are now a molten blob at the bottom of the reactor," Gundersen added. "TEPCO announced they had a melt through. A melt down is when the fuel collapses to the bottom of the reactor, and a melt through means it has melted through some layers. That blob is incredibly radioactive, and now you have water on top of it. The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."
Independent scientists have been monitoring the locations of radioactive "hot spots" around Japan, and their findings are disconcerting.
"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl," said Gundersen. "The data I'm seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man's-land for Chernobyl. We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can't clean all this up. We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl."
article said:
In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.
"There is and should be concern about younger people being exposed, and the Japanese government will be giving out radiation monitors to children," Dr MV Ramana, a physicist with the Programme on Science and Global Security at Princeton University who specialises in issues of nuclear safety, told Al Jazeera.
Dr Ramana explained that he believes the primary radiation threat continues to be mostly for residents living within 50km of the plant, but added: "There are going to be areas outside of the Japanese government's 20km mandatory evacuation zone where radiation is higher. So that could mean evacuation zones in those areas as well."
Gundersen points out that far more radiation has been released than has been reported.
"They recalculated the amount of radiation released, but the news is really not talking about this," he said. "The new calculations show that within the first week of the accident, they released 2.3 times as much radiation as they thought they released in the first 80 days."
According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".
"We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."
Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well.
I think the problem is that while it's now yesterdays news, there is another year of frantic cooling of hot and molten fuel elements to go. The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.
"There is and should be concern about younger people being exposed, and the Japanese government will be giving out radiation monitors to children," Dr MV Ramana, a physicist with the Programme on Science and Global Security at Princeton University who specialises in issues of nuclear safety, told Al Jazeera.
Dr Ramana explained that he believes the primary radiation threat continues to be mostly for residents living within 50km of the plant, but added: "There are going to be areas outside of the Japanese government's 20km mandatory evacuation zone where radiation is higher. So that could mean evacuation zones in those areas as well."
Gundersen points out that far more radiation has been released than has been reported.
"They recalculated the amount of radiation released, but the news is really not talking about this," he said. "The new calculations show that within the first week of the accident, they released 2.3 times as much radiation as they thought they released in the first 80 days."
According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".
"We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."
Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well.
There is also more danger from Unit 4:
article said:
Gundersen worries about more earthquake aftershocks, as well as how to cool two of the units.
"Unit four is the most dangerous, it could topple," he said. "After the earthquake in Sumatra there was an 8.6 [aftershock] about 90 days later, so we are not out of the woods yet. And you're at a point where, if that happens, there is no science for this, no one has ever imagined having hot nuclear fuel lying outside the fuel pool. They've not figured out how to cool units three and four."
Also I read about Simi in California - a much higher polluting incident that Three Mile Island, at the old Rocketdyne facility which melted due to a lubricant leaching out of the sodium pump bearing and clagging up the cooling channels in the reactor. "Unit four is the most dangerous, it could topple," he said. "After the earthquake in Sumatra there was an 8.6 [aftershock] about 90 days later, so we are not out of the woods yet. And you're at a point where, if that happens, there is no science for this, no one has ever imagined having hot nuclear fuel lying outside the fuel pool. They've not figured out how to cool units three and four."
A blast from the past I found the other day:
http://www.marfdrat.net/2011/03/14/fukushima-nucle...
Sadly the optimism was ill founded and the contamination is still spreading
Over 1,550 tons of highly radioactive sludge found in 5 prefectures - The Mainichi Daily News:
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110729p2a00m...
Fukushima Teacher Muzzled on Radiation Risks - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/fukushima...
Makes you realise how much stuff in the atmosphere etc gets mixed around all of the time. So far it seems to be concentrating in ash, air filters and water treatment sludge, the amounts are huge however. 8,000 bequerels/kg is in my view a huge amount as a counter would be extremely active next to that, whereas usual UK levels are about 0.1 bequerel (estimated from my old Maplin counter).
http://www.marfdrat.net/2011/03/14/fukushima-nucle...
Sadly the optimism was ill founded and the contamination is still spreading
Over 1,550 tons of highly radioactive sludge found in 5 prefectures - The Mainichi Daily News:
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110729p2a00m...
Fukushima Teacher Muzzled on Radiation Risks - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/fukushima...
Makes you realise how much stuff in the atmosphere etc gets mixed around all of the time. So far it seems to be concentrating in ash, air filters and water treatment sludge, the amounts are huge however. 8,000 bequerels/kg is in my view a huge amount as a counter would be extremely active next to that, whereas usual UK levels are about 0.1 bequerel (estimated from my old Maplin counter).
A thread resurrection to match the melt-throughs that seem to be happening/imminent at the plants, it looks like reactor No. 1 is going to be the first:
http://enenews.com/radio-just-a-matter-of-time-bef...
Some live video footage of the plant being discussed here:
http://enenews.com/fukushima-webcam-discussion-thr...
Interesting to check out the fires, light shows and emissions.
On one hand TEPCO is claiming close to cold shut-down, on the other hand we have people speaking of frequent criticality events, fissioning, a view of some that the corium has left the building already... and fires at No4 storage facility.
As I still remember people explaining how it was all perfectly safe and nothing could go wrong I wonder if we will see the corium hitting the water table (not so far away as it's next to the sea) and be sad witness to steam explosions far beyond the dirtiness of Chernobyl. Currently I have rather less faith in Tepco than I do/did in the Russians to put a lid on this.
http://enenews.com/radio-just-a-matter-of-time-bef...
Some live video footage of the plant being discussed here:
http://enenews.com/fukushima-webcam-discussion-thr...
Interesting to check out the fires, light shows and emissions.
On one hand TEPCO is claiming close to cold shut-down, on the other hand we have people speaking of frequent criticality events, fissioning, a view of some that the corium has left the building already... and fires at No4 storage facility.
As I still remember people explaining how it was all perfectly safe and nothing could go wrong I wonder if we will see the corium hitting the water table (not so far away as it's next to the sea) and be sad witness to steam explosions far beyond the dirtiness of Chernobyl. Currently I have rather less faith in Tepco than I do/did in the Russians to put a lid on this.
Beyond Rational said:
The original thread reads like a dark comic, the level of vehement insistence of safety is worrying if they worked in the industry.
Yup, the 'It's perfectly safe, idiot' posts start here, I only wish they were right We'll have to hope Tepco are right, but I have little faith in their ability to get near it.
There was Iodine 131 reported over europe (Hungary) recently - I suspect that's not from Fukushima but I would like to know _where_ it did come from.
What caused the Chernobyl melt to stop? Was it the sand around the vessel? I know they dug a runnel underneath (and a hero died draining a water tank below it) - did they just fill it with concrete in the end or a cooling system?
Globs said:
Beyond Rational said:
The original thread reads like a dark comic, the level of vehement insistence of safety is worrying if they worked in the industry.
Yup, the 'It's perfectly safe, idiot' posts start here, I only wish they were right We'll have to hope Tepco are right, but I have little faith in their ability to get near it.
There was Iodine 131 reported over europe (Hungary) recently - I suspect that's not from Fukushima but I would like to know _where_ it did come from.
What caused the Chernobyl melt to stop? Was it the sand around the vessel? I know they dug a runnel underneath (and a hero died draining a water tank below it) - did they just fill it with concrete in the end or a cooling system?
I was astonished that anything made it out of containment, I freely admit that I didn't think that this was at all likely pre accident!
Chernobyl stopped as it spread out and mixed with other stuff. No cooling as far as I know - the decay heat drops off fast. They just dumped a load of boron containing crap and as much concrete as they could lay their hands on, on top.
Chernobyl stopped as it spread out and mixed with other stuff. No cooling as far as I know - the decay heat drops off fast. They just dumped a load of boron containing crap and as much concrete as they could lay their hands on, on top.
Globs said:
There was Iodine 131 reported over europe (Hungary) recently - I suspect that's not from Fukushima but I would like to know _where_ it did come from.
define 'recently'? a 'while' (as in: period sufficient for hemisphere atmospheric dispersal) after Fukushima I-131 was detected across europe, including UK, Ukraine etc etc but I'd very much doubt anything was detected recently, certainly I don't recall it being on any of our air samples for some time.
It'd have been Fukushima: but with an 8 day half life, will be long gone now
Globs said:
Beyond Rational said:
The original thread reads like a dark comic, the level of vehement insistence of safety is worrying if they worked in the industry.
Yup, the 'It's perfectly safe, idiot' posts start here, I only wish they were right We'll have to hope Tepco are right, but I have little faith in their ability to get near it.
There was Iodine 131 reported over europe (Hungary) recently - I suspect that's not from Fukushima but I would like to know _where_ it did come from.
What caused the Chernobyl melt to stop? Was it the sand around the vessel? I know they dug a runnel underneath (and a hero died draining a water tank below it) - did they just fill it with concrete in the end or a cooling system?
Have a look here to get an idea of the number of deaths caused by coal mining: http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/site/disasters/ The data is old but will give a reasonable idea. Then add on all the deaths caused by gas and oil extraction - still regarded as dangerous today. We tolerate those as accidents . . . because usually only those directly involved can be killed but with nuclear power there is the possibility that others not connected with the power station can be affected. So it's another case of typical blinkered view of life, not caring what happens to others as long as we're not affected.
Then compare to the Chernobyl disaster. I remember hearing an interview with Greenpeace shortly after the disaster and they were saying there will be "a million deaths and (some big number) of birth defects". That's what the woman said . . . back in the days when Greenpeace were taken seriously and had some credible policies. I too assumed they were right . . . but look at what really happened.
The birth defects didn't ever materialise. The mass deaths didn't ever materialise. The World Health Organisation can never be accused of ignoring health issues or failing to report them - that's what they are there for so when they say . . .
"...there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
"The report’s estimate for the eventual number of deaths is far lower than earlier, well-publicized speculations that radiation exposure would claim tens of thousands of lives. But the 4000 figure is not far different from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists, according to Dr Mikhail Balonov, a radiation expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who was a scientist in the former Soviet Union at the time of the accident."
"Notes Vinton, “The most important need is for accurate information on healthy lifestyles, together with better regulations to promote small, rural businesses. Poverty is the real danger. We need to take steps to empower people.”" - This is one of the most important things to note,the remote areas of the Ukraine are very poor with very poor healthcare and nutrition - that has killed more of the Ukranian people than Chernobyl ever could.
Chernobyl report is here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/...
Nuclear power is just another energy source with different risks and if those risks are managed - as we gain more experience and technical knowledge, then we reduce the potential deaths.
Also - and I don't have a reference for this here - if you take the deaths per megawatt produced you'll see that Nuclear power is safer than wind mills, water, coal, gas etc put together. Same as it produces less co2 per megawatt than any other power source but that's also conveniently forgotten for similar reasons.
Busa_Rush said:
Have a look here to get an idea of the number of deaths caused by coal mining: http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/site/disasters/ The data is old but will give a reasonable idea. Then add on all the deaths caused by gas and oil extraction - still regarded as dangerous today. We tolerate those as accidents . . . because usually only those directly involved can be killed but with nuclear power there is the possibility that others not connected with the power station can be affected. So it's another case of typical blinkered view of life, not caring what happens to others as long as we're not affected.
Particulate emissions from coal kill a lot of people not directly linked to the plants. They just have better PR!Mojocvh said:
s
t. There goes the neighbourhood.
And to think how I was vilified on the climate change threads for daring to point out wind turbines are a non polluting alternative to Atomic's.
Not having that! t. There goes the neighbourhood. And to think how I was vilified on the climate change threads for daring to point out wind turbines are a non polluting alternative to Atomic's.
Wind turbines, I'll grant you, have a non-polluting impact on the environment in which they are situated but firstly, they are no substitute for nuclear in terms of meeting the energy requirements of this country, and secondly, are polluting in the areas of mineral extraction required for their production.
They are also pig ugly and an offense to the (on-shore) landscape where they are sited.
They also kill bats and birds...
Sorry to butt in!
Let's not de-rail this thread - discussions on all climate related matters (including windymills) are discussed elsewhere!
Ali G said:
Wind turbines, I'll grant you, have a non-polluting impact on the environment in which they are situated
Not quite true, they all need servicing and in the case of off-shore wind farms, they have a fleet of boats kept on the go all the time - starting their diesel engines several times every day even if not being used. Then there's the transport of the engineers to the shore . . . so all of a sudden you've got at least 2-3 boats, maybe 10-15 active crew plus engineers on duty, all of whom need to be transported from their home to the shore and then to the windy farm. That's a not insignificant amount of tax gas when you compare it to the energy produced as a ratio to other generation systems. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff