Nuclear Disaster Unfolding In Fukushima Options

[tumetuestumefais...]

How radioactive?

Maybe you've missed it but I was repeatedly posting the measurements from the Fukushima plant, so in the linked files are the values from around the plant.
Here are measurements from four sites in Japan, which help to put the measurements at the plant into a perspective of wider areas. This measurements clearly show the expected spikes (look at the 7 days graphs), from the quite steep down slopes - which are clearly mostly the result of short half-life isotops (like the infamous I-131) fast decay - I've assessed (it is not trivial task - but if you're really interested how it is done feel free to ask questions) the values would come close to normal in orders of weeks so the cummulative dose for the population will not be harmful or dangerous. The relatively steep slope shows the decay speed signature which to me absolutely clearly rules-out a significant contamination with Sr-90, Cs-137 or Pu-241. And yes, the measurements clearly make possible the baggage and instruments of the musicians could be contaminated to measurable values (by very sensitive airport detectors), but quite certainly the level could not be harmful or even dangerous, because as such is not measured even in the Japan, and will quickly decay to practically unmeasurable values.

[maturin42]

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.

[bill]

Now, this is what I call safe

Notice how safe reactor #4 that was not running at the time of the quake

Notice how safe the 2 foot thick concrete building walls are

notice how safe the spent fuel rod pools are

yep SAFE

(IMG:http://rense.com/1.imagesH/reactorphot2.jpg)

[GroundPounder]

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.

well stated sir!

[bill]

(Emphasis added is mine)

more well engineered safety




http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear

A current focus of concern in Japan now is the pools at the reactors where spent fuel is stored. Some of this spent fuel is still very radioactive since it was only removed from the reactors a few months ago, and it must be covered by water and cooled to keep from overheating. If the spent fuel rods get too hot, they can suffer damage and release significant amounts of radioactive gases into the atmosphere, and could eventually catch fire.

Since several of the reactor buildings that surround these pools have been damaged by explosions, the radioactivity released from the pools in those buildings would get directly into the atmosphere. Similar fuel damage within the reactor cores would be surrounded by the reactor’s primary containment so that a much smaller fraction would get out, unless there was a significant breech of the containment.

Water needs to be added to the spent fuel pools at Fukushima since heating by the spent fuel causes the water to evaporate and boil off.

In addition, reports from Japan say that the spent fuel pool at reactor Unit 4 is leaking, which further increases the need for additional water.

A possible source of the leak in the Unit 4 pool may be the seals around the doors (or “gates”) on one side of the spent fuel pool. These gates are shown in the diagram below. They are located between the pool and the area above the reactor vessel. They are concrete with metal liners, and are roughly 20’x 3’.

When fuel is moved between the pool and vessel, this whole region is filled with water, the gates are opened, and the fuel can be moved to or from the reactor core while remaining under water. The water not only keeps the fuel rods cool but acts as a radiation shield.



(IMG:http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_libecrgLyW1qbnrqd.jpg)

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Spent Fuel Cooling System

When the gates are closed, they are made watertight by an inflatable seal, similar to a bicycle innertube, that runs around the sides and bottom of the gates. Electric air pumps are used to inflate these seals and keep them inflated as air leaks out of them over time.

These pumps are powered by electricity from the power grid, and not by backup diesel power or batteries. So once the power grid in Japan was knocked out, these seals could not be inflated if they lost air over time. If these seals lost air they could lead to significant water loss from the pool, even if there were no direct physical damage to the pool from the earthquake or tsunami. This may be what happened at pool 4, and could affect the other pools as well.

We saw an example of this in the US at the Hatch nuclear plant in Georgia in December 1986. This reactor is very similar to the reactors at Fukushima. In the Hatch case, the line supplying air to the inflatable seal was accidentally closed, the seal lost pressure and created a leak, and by the time the problem was identified several hours later some 141,000 gallons of water leaked from the pool—about half the water in the pool Fortunately, the source of the problem was discovered and fixed before the water level uncovered the fuel.
An NRC document on the leak gave this description of the event:

A valve in the single air supply line to the seals was mistakenly closed. Although water level dropped about 5 feet and low-level alarms in the spent fuel pool worked, the leak was not specifically identified for several hours because a leak detection device was valved out and none of the seals were instrumented to alarm on loss of air pressure.

The NRC document goes on to note that if the water level had gotten low enough to expose the fuel the high radiation level around the pool would have made it difficult for workers to fix the problem.

The closed air line in the Hatch case had the same result that lack of electric power the air pump inflating the seals in Japan could have.

_________________________________________________________________

[tumetuestumefais...]

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

With all the respect I think this misinterpretation of reality for several reasons.

First, globally the solar and wind not even remotely have the cappacity to substitute for coal and gas used for electricity generating given the human population and the energy needs projected, yet we must substitute coal and gas already in first half of this century, before fossil peak, otherwise a global economical and subsequent malthusian catastrophe would quicky occur.

Second, there is nothing like "nuclear waste" if we proceed to 4th generation nuclear technologies.


Third, frankly, whether you want or not the nuclear energy, at least the China and possibly other developing countries too, will build the nuclear plants like hundreds of them next decades, to achieve their national energetic security and independence, so only what the countries with enough activistic pundits to persuade gullible public to politically interfere with markets and stop the nuclear energy development argumenting with irrational fears would achieve is to stay behind and that this "green" countries - in the wake of everrising fossil resources prices - will become relatively very quickly a dependent "third world" - as is already happening at the large scale in the USA, making it most dangerous nation in the world, waging illegal wars to steal the last fossil resouces in Middle East (to meet everrising energy demand there which is the highest per capita in the world) and desperately staging so repugniant pretenses to it as 9/11 - just ~20 years after they decided there to stop nuclear energy development under the pressure of the professional activists. The promoted "renewables" besides not having needed potential also cannot economically compete even with the nuclear power of the present 3rd generation, not speaking about the 4th generation nuclear power (burning btw the so called "waste"). So it's your choice, don't wonder when "the bill" will arrive to you and especially to your children and grandchildren if you join proceeding this way - paradoxicly it would end that USA will have the old gradually more and more unstable plants posing considerable risk, which USA then couldn't shut down, because not having an alternative, while the others will have new, relatively very cheap and very safe energy resources which are essential to maintain a stable economics...

[bill]

How about Germany with nearly 30 Giga watts of solar electric capacity

the US could surpass this easily since we have much more sunlight

the complete paradigm of more and more power is unsustainable

nuclear power has proved itself to be too expensive and too dangerous

[tumetuestumefais...]

(IMG:http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_libecrgLyW1qbnrqd.jpg)

funny the picture somehow doesn't show at all the outline of the Fukushima plant design and the spent fuel storage position.
(IMG:http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8904/reactor2u.jpg)

[DoYouEverWonder]

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.

We need to bust the myth that solar is too expensive.

What they don't take into consideration is that solar systems need very little maintenance and rarely break down. And even when they do, big deal. The owner of the system will have plenty of motivation to get the system up and running and in the meantime, no one else will even notice. Right now over 200,000 people are displaced because a nuke plant went down.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Mar 20 2011, 03:26 PM

[tumetuestumefais...]

How about Germany with nearly 30 Giga watts of solar electric capacity

the US could surpass this easily since we have much more sunlight

yeah, especially at night I expect it will surpass to terawatt range (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[bill]

Clearly the diagram is meant for illustration only

and did you miss this from the report

"We saw an example of this in the US at the Hatch nuclear plant in Georgia in December 1986. This reactor is very similar to the reactors at Fukushima."


beyond that take it up with Dave Lochbaum he is the nuclear engineer that wrote the article

[tumetuestumefais...]

We need to bust the myth that solar is too expensive.

We already busted the myth it isn't expensive here in CZ, because the calculations showed the solar in CZ hugely subsidized by the previous govts. if this continue to grow would surpass the cost to repay the Czech national debt. So now the parliament started to heavily tax solar to stop this thief industry.

[GroundPounder]

the problems with all of this banter is that the premises are stated as fact when they may be conjecture, speculation or wishful thinking. always examine the premise, you know, have a stable foundation for your argument.

certain types of radiation kill people (whether slowly or quickly). that's a fairly well accepted premise. generally radiation in the 4-7k angstrom range will not kill people unless of course it is coherent (think laser). nuclear reactions produce radiation of much shorter wavelengths and/or charged particles which are detrimental to living things. i have yet to hear anyone explain to my satisfaction how to completely mitigate that risk. of course, some bright people may want to turn it into a numbers game, 'what's one or two lives in the grand scheme of things'. i'm not smart enough to play God.

[bill]

"yeah, especially at night I expect it will surpass to terawatt range"




that why God invented wind for 'where the sun doesn't shine'


which is where you seem to have your head

[tumetuestumefais...]

Clearly the diagram is meant for illustration only
and did you miss this from the report
"We saw an example of this in the US at the Hatch nuclear plant in Georgia in December 1986. This reactor is very similar to the reactors at Fukushima."
beyond that take it up with Dave Lochbaum he is the nuclear engineer that wrote the article

I wonder why he didn't used the actual outline, the internet is full of it.

[bill]

tume

you seem to be full of 'it' too

[tumetuestumefais...]

the problems with all of this banter is that the premises are stated as fact when they may be conjecture, speculation or wishful thinking. always examine the premise, you know, have a stable foundation for your argument.

certain types of radiation kill people (whether slowly or quickly). that's a fairly well accepted premise. generally radiation in the 4-7k angstrom range will not kill people unless of course it is coherent (think laser). nuclear reactions produce radiation of much shorter wavelengths and/or charged particles which are detrimental to living things. i have yet to hear anyone explain to my satisfaction how to completely mitigate that risk. of course, some bright people may want to turn it into a numbers game, 'what's one or two lives in the grand scheme of things'. i'm not smart enough to play God.

I think there's no risk for USA from Fukushima given the readings in Japan. There is much larger source of radiactivity, especially long half-time radionuclides - for the US - at the Nevada and New Mexico test sites - yet somehow people fear a plant in Japan where no nuclear explosion occured.

[tumetuestumefais...]

tume

you seem to be full of 'it' too

I think what is need to mitigate (I borrow this from Ground Pounder) now are the irrational fears - it is not very healthy as a psychologist I must say.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 20 2011, 04:02 PM

[GroundPounder]

what's a few extra cancers among friends? we all gotta go sometime:

http://rense.com/general93/chris.htm

edit:

you may want to look at ibaraki province where it looks to me like the folks are getting a years worth of background radiation in one hour (after a bit of wine,my math may be off):

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870

Edit2:

i think my math is off. if the chart is to be believed, ibaraki is getting 160 micro Rem/hr. that's only ~4 milli Rem/day.
who knows.

edit3:

if the data is accurate, then it depends on where the sensor is. the nearest point in ibaraki is ~ 31 miles away from the plant, the most distant is 113 miles. slice it any way you like.

[tumetuestumefais...]

Here just a teaser how the "Renewables" are "perfectly safe":
hydro, just one accident of many:


death toll: 75
windmills:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
death toll: 67
(after the fatal accidents they now imposed 500m exclusion zones in France around the operating windturbines, which one could expect would make this bussines effectively out of market at mainland and push it out to the sea)

compare the death tolls with Fukushima or even the overal death toll in the world's nuclear industry and don't forget to relate it to the generated kilowathours... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I'm not against the renewables where it is suitable, even not against minor subsidies to it (not like in EU where the taxpayers effectively pay substantial part of the whole thing and profits to the renewables company) but I'm after studying facts extremely skeptical it can ever cover the power needs of the future mankind (not speaking it is beyond the available resources including financial to make it possible and sustainable) - if a massive depopulation will not be inflicted as some circles around the Club of Rome apparently want... frankly, I think the people who actively cry for the nuclear phase-out sh*t in their own nest.

For some this radiation dose chart can be useful:

(IMG:http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png)

from a japanese forum:
(IMG:http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/fgpsm.gif)