Japan Fukushima nuclear thread

[Apache]

egor110 said:

I see Germany are pulling out of nuclear power because of fukushima.
They've also pulled out of building the new nuclear power stations at oldbury and wylfa over here.

Merkel is in an impossible position, she has an election looming so has to appear to be listening to the Greens who lead the German distrust of anything nuclear, which fits in with her need to economise but is totally at odds with meeting her country's future power needs

[MOTORVATOR]

llewop said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Cheers Llewop.

So this latest 1.4e8Bq/kg's, just to put it in context, is that like just a further (insert scary figure) sq miles of area that can't be fished for (insert further scary figure) hundreds of years or just a lengthening of time for an existing screwed up area?

The discharges to date have obviously had an effect and we do seem to get the story every time another bit happens that it's not that big a problem, but my mind says they are probably adding to the problem faster than natural repair is happening. So it is fair to not only call it an ecological disaster, albeit localised, but also one that seems to be increasing.

I started to try and do a fag packet calculation over lunch but ran out of time, will try and finish it tonight - (anyone)care to pick an area of sea or more to the point - volume of sea water to disperse that in? I could pick a number, but wouldn't want to be seen to be manipulating the result! Having said that, it's also not quite as simple as dilution - once pesky living things get in the way, they might start to concentrate it again, depending on what the chemical form is and how it is metabolised.....

Wouldn't know where to start in that calculation. That's why I asked you.

From reading though it seems direct dispersion in the seawater is not the key factor. The contamination falls out of the water fairly quickly creating a gradient with depth and then accumulates on the seabed. Of course it won't stay there as bottom feeders then pick it up and the problem then is knowing how far they transport themselves before becoming food themselves and so on.

So at a guess it's not as simple as determining how quickly dispersion occurs in the actual sea water it's probably more related to how dense the fishery is and how far it can spread itself within a timeframe?

Of course that isn't helped in turn by the fact that the area is not being fished and hence there becomes a disproportionately dense population to move it about.

Probably boils down to whether the bioaccumulation is at a higher rate than half life.

I guess their salvation would be a huge tsunami to pick up the silt and disperse it offshore but until then I might give the oysters a miss.

[llewop]

MOTORVATOR said:

llewop said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Cheers Llewop.

So this latest 1.4e8Bq/kg's, just to put it in context, is that like just a further (insert scary figure) sq miles of area that can't be fished for (insert further scary figure) hundreds of years or just a lengthening of time for an existing screwed up area?

The discharges to date have obviously had an effect and we do seem to get the story every time another bit happens that it's not that big a problem, but my mind says they are probably adding to the problem faster than natural repair is happening. So it is fair to not only call it an ecological disaster, albeit localised, but also one that seems to be increasing.

I started to try and do a fag packet calculation over lunch but ran out of time, will try and finish it tonight - (anyone)care to pick an area of sea or more to the point - volume of sea water to disperse that in? I could pick a number, but wouldn't want to be seen to be manipulating the result! Having said that, it's also not quite as simple as dilution - once pesky living things get in the way, they might start to concentrate it again, depending on what the chemical form is and how it is metabolised.....

Wouldn't know where to start in that calculation. That's why I asked you.

From reading though it seems direct dispersion in the seawater is not the key factor. The contamination falls out of the water fairly quickly creating a gradient with depth and then accumulates on the seabed. Of course it won't stay there as bottom feeders then pick it up and the problem then is knowing how far they transport themselves before becoming food themselves and so on.

So at a guess it's not as simple as determining how quickly dispersion occurs in the actual sea water it's probably more related to how dense the fishery is and how far it can spread itself within a timeframe?

Of course that isn't helped in turn by the fact that the area is not being fished and hence there becomes a disproportionately dense population to move it about.

Probably boils down to whether the bioaccumulation is at a higher rate than half life.

I guess their salvation would be a huge tsunami to pick up the silt and disperse it offshore but until then I might give the oysters a miss.

I can do all the calculation - just didn't want to be accussed of dumbing it down by dividing activity by the whole volume of the ocean! Bioaccumulation is a whole other world of things - there are standardised assumptions that can be made (for instance if it were on land - transfer from deposited activity to foodstuffs, depending on foodstuff and radioisotope in question - one thing sticks in the mind is that one of our accident response guru's used to go on about 4 cabbages/m2.... don't ask! ) I'll try and conjure up a few numbers after I get back tonight. I'd better get back to work for now!

[MOTORVATOR]

Interesting article here although it still doesn't totally answer the question of what currents end up where and what volume of water may be involved.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120204f1.html

And another here that seems to indicate that monitoring of seawater has shown a far greater discharge than thought. All with accompanying scary words like quadrillion.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushim...

One that gives a sort of indication of how far out is affected.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushim...

And let's concrete the seabed to stop it spreading.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2012/02/22/tepco-...

[Globs]

Apache said:

Merkel is in an impossible position, she has an election looming so has to appear to be listening to the Greens who lead the German distrust of anything nuclear

Mind you - have you met a green in the last decade who didn't spit as soon as you mention the perfectly reasonable practice of burning coal for electricity? Most of them are obsessed by the futile energy sinks they call 'wind turbines'..

[Talksteer]

MOTORVATOR said:

And let's concrete the seabed to stop it spreading.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2012/02/22/tepco-...

The issues with the sea bed is that the decommissioning work will result in a large number of ship movements in and out of the site they have constructed a new pier for this purpose. The concrete cap is in place to prevent the ship movements stirring up the seabed.

[llewop]

MOTORVATOR said:

Cheers Llewop.

So this latest 1.4e8Bq/kg's, just to put it in context, is that like just a further (insert scary figure) sq miles of area that can't be fished for (insert further scary figure) hundreds of years or just a lengthening of time for an existing screwed up area?

The discharges to date have obviously had an effect and we do seem to get the story every time another bit happens that it's not that big a problem, but my mind says they are probably adding to the problem faster than natural repair is happening. So it is fair to not only call it an ecological disaster, albeit localised, but also one that seems to be increasing.

(I'll go back to this one to avoid nested quoting that fill the page!)

trying to extrapolate that figure to activity in ocean itself is tricky - depends on what dilution factors you want to use? There was mention of about 80 litres of that stuff being, so 80 x 1.4E8 Bq in to the sea = a total activity of 11.2 GBq (1.12E10 Bq) of Strontium into the sea: so roughly a large car’s fuel tank’s worth (volume wise) for strontium-90 – the European Council Food Intervention Level (CFIL) for Sr-90 for liquid foods is 125 Bq/kg. So, if it were diluted in a cube of sea water 450m along each side, the specific activity would be down to less than the CFIL and the sea water could be consumed – assuming you’re into drinking sea water! (actual dilution about 9E7 - pick any other combination of length/width/height of water volume to visualise as you wish)

But as we've said, it’s not just the water – the activity could end up in the sediment or whatever is living in the water; although from some information I have from EA Sr-90 has only a limited tendency to bind to sediments and is only very weakly accumulated by aquatic organisms, typically concentration ratios relative to water being in the range 1 to 5. Sr-90 seems more of an issue on land than in the water (20% absorption through gastrointestinal absorption and would ultimately accumulate in bones – chemically it’s very similar to calcium.

Due to it's daughter Y-90 with a particularly strong beta, Sr-90 is probably 2nd behind Cs-137 in terms of long term external radiation issues from this sort of event, similar 1/2 life too (about 30 years),

EA = Environment Agency - info from their 'Radionuclides Handbook'

I had a scan at some of the other references you found - the concreting the sea bed is a weird one, but as someone has said, maybe they are looking at trying to limit or prevent stiring the sediment with ship movements, which does make some sense.

[Apache]

Globs said:

Apache said:

Merkel is in an impossible position, she has an election looming so has to appear to be listening to the Greens who lead the German distrust of anything nuclear

Mind you - have you met a green in the last decade who didn't spit as soon as you mention the perfectly reasonable practice of burning coal for electricity? Most of them are obsessed by the futile energy sinks they call 'wind turbines'..

I work with one, she wont even enter a discussion about nuclear fuel and is convinced cars are killing us all.......she still drives one mind

[qureshia]

..... Ambassador Murata writes to UN Secretary General: “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No. 4 reactor”

Suggestions 35M people could have to evacuate Toyko, if the pool used to cool the spent fuel rods leaks and runs dry.

Is this stuff real or scare mongering ??

[Mojocvh]

Globs said:

Apache said:

Merkel is in an impossible position, she has an election looming so has to appear to be listening to the Greens who lead the German distrust of anything nuclear

Mind you - have you met a green in the last decade who didn't spit as soon as you mention the perfectly reasonable practice of burning coal for electricity? Most of them are obsessed by the futile energy sinks they call 'wind turbines'..

Funny, isn't it, how these discussions inevitably attract the rabid from either end of the spectrum...

[Welshbeef]

qureshia said:

..... Ambassador Murata writes to UN Secretary General: “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No. 4 reactor”

Suggestions 35M people could have to evacuate Toyko, if the pool used to cool the spent fuel rods leaks and runs dry.

Is this stuff real or scare mongering ??

Link for the source on that?

If so I'd expect to see stocks fall off a cliff when trading starts

[ElvisPenhaligon]

Do they have means of monitoring the water level, or is it just hysteric hyperbole?

[Welshbeef]

ElvisPenhaligon said:

Do they have means of monitoring the water level, or is it just hysteric hyperbole?

Surely even if try did have readings - why trust them just saturate the whole thing with water. I mean what's worst radioactive water or full meltdown in Japan which would wipe Japan off the map for 50-100 years again

[ElvisPenhaligon]

I suppose we're not party to any information about what stuff and how much was in the pond?

If it poses a threat, they probably need a bigger plan than pretending it isn't there.

[Welshbeef]

ElvisPenhaligon said:

I suppose we're not party to any information about what stuff and how much was in the pond?

If it poses a threat, they probably need a bigger plan than pretending it isn't there.

So if it does run dry there will be a full on meltdown. What does that mean for Japan? And other areas?

[Mojocvh]

Welshbeef said:

qureshia said:

..... Ambassador Murata writes to UN Secretary General: “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No. 4 reactor”

Suggestions 35M people could have to evacuate Toyko, if the pool used to cool the spent fuel rods leaks and runs dry.

Is this stuff real or scare mongering ??

Link for the source on that?

If so I'd expect to see stocks fall off a cliff when trading starts

http://enenews.com/ambassador-murata-writes-secretary-general-exaggeration-fate-japan-world-depends-4-reactor-appeals-independent-assessment-team

[ElvisPenhaligon]

Welshbeef said:

So if it does run dry there will be a full on meltdown. What does that mean for Japan? And other areas?

It probably means lots and lots of hand wringing and loads of bks about wind turbines, nicely relaunching the climate change bandwagon.

[Mojocvh]

ElvisPenhaligon said:

Welshbeef said:

So if it does run dry there will be a full on meltdown. What does that mean for Japan? And other areas?

It probably means lots and lots of hand wringing and loads of bks about wind turbines, nicely relaunching the climate change bandwagon.

Yeah, but then I doubt you'll fully understand the implications unless you OPEN YOUR MIND.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwCfAY4iyPQ&fea...

[Welshbeef]

Mojocvh said:

Yeah, but then I doubt you'll fully understand the implications unless you OPEN YOUR MIND.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwCfAY4iyPQ&fea...

Ok so that's the worst case. .... Clearly a plan B needs to be thought of or well the worlds third largest economy will instantly switch off. Which in turn will cause a financial collapse of the financial system plus of course the fact over 50% of Japan would be inhabital and the outpouring of radiation to china and USA could topple worlds number one and two and themselves out ... Project gamechanger

[hairykrishna]

qureshia said:

..... Ambassador Murata writes to UN Secretary General: “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No. 4 reactor”

I'd say that was in fact a massive exaggeration