Japan Quake Damage Mounts; Reactor Watched

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

It was just reported that "It is most likely that all three reactors fuel rods are exposed and are melting down."

From what I have read, that just means that those reactors are toast -- they can't be repaired - a lost reactor in a $35B+ disaster is little more than a rounding error. It doesn't imply that there is any current danger of the containment areas be breached.

[Marcus Aurelius]

17 US crewmen were washed down. U.S. Ships are moving out and talk of prevailing winds are being discussed.

[charlestudor2005]

Likely NO ONE really knows the risk. Extra precautions are being taken, may not necessary, maybe to no avail.

[Marcus Aurelius]

We have reactors in CA. http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html


And not least,,,....we have the Yellowstone Caldera. Which is full BTW because the ground has been rising for the last few years.
When it goes it's a mass extinction event.
So eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die.

[Iaintliein]

The fact that so far, at least, casualties directly attributable to the nuclear plants are very low actually speaks volumes about the safety of these installations. A force that moved the entire planet's axis has not (at least yet), unleashed the spectre of Hanoi Jane's "China Syndrome".

If things don't get any worse (we all hope that is the case), then this disaster should be objectively seen as supporting the viability of nuclear power. If fear of 8.9 quakes stop nuclear development, then it should also stop hydro-electric development for fear of massive flooding. The cruel facts are that wind and solar just won't supply what's needed and the cost/benefit analysis still favors so called "fossil" fuels first, with nuclear running second.

How big a role did having reliable electrical energy available from these plants play in allowing the Japanese to build infrastructure etc. to handle the disaster as well as they have? Without modern industry and the power needed to run it, Japan would look a great deal like it did the last time a quake of this magnitude hit (circa 1200 I think), and the casualties would have been far, far more numerous.

[NinaBrooke]

my god, i also just read the following article in CNN on how critical the situation remains in the next 24 hours.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12732015

From BBC: More from Japanese nuclear engineer Masashi Goto: He say that as the reactor uses mox (mixed oxide) fuel, the melting point is lower than that of conventional fuel. Should a meltdown and an explosion occur, he says, plutonium could be spread over an area up to twice as far as estimated for a conventional nuclear fuel explosion. The next 24 hours are critical, he says.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

If things don't get any worse (we all hope that is the case), then this disaster should be objectively seen as supporting the viability of nuclear power. If fear of 8.9 quakes stop nuclear development, then it should also stop hydro-electric development for fear of massive flooding. The cruel facts are that wind and solar just won't supply what's needed and the cost/benefit analysis still favors so called "fossil" fuels first, with nuclear running second.

Word! Every energy source has downsides. Even the wind power, beloved of greens, kills birds and causes noise. Not to mention the fact that it offends Kennedys.

[NinaBrooke]

Here are some satelitte photos: I can`t find words to express this, its unbelievable
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...sunami.html?hp

[pjorourke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The fact that so far, at least, casualties directly attributable to the nuclear plants are very low actually speaks volumes about the safety of these installations. A force that moved the entire planet's axis has not (at least yet), unleashed the spectre of Hanoi Jane's "China Syndrome".

I agree, but what about the long term effects? and the half life of these radiation? As was in Cernobyl? That is what is scary for me.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

I agree, but what about the long term effects? and the half life of these radiation? As was in Cernobyl? That is what is scary for me.

Certainly these are valid concerns. Two things working in their favor are that a lot was learned from Cernobyl. . . and they're Japanese. If this mess doesn't get further out of hand they may yet be able to contain it. And if anyone can figure out a remediation program that works, it would be these folks.

[pjorourke]

Of course, the biggest difference between this and Chernobyl is that the Chernobyl reactor was built using carbon to slow down the excess neutrons not water as is used in the ones here. Carbon burns (which it did there creating a lot of the mess), water doesn't.

Then there is the whole issue of competent/trained operators - also sadly lacking at Chernobyl.

See also: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/14/...llowing-japan/

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Of course, the biggest difference between this and Chernobyl is that the Chernobyl reactor was built using carbon to slow down the excess neutrons not water as is used in the ones here. Carbon burns (which it did there creating a lot of the mess), water doesn't.

Then there is the whole issue of competent/trained operators - also sadly lacking at Chernobyl.

See also: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/14/...llowing-japan/

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I knew that there are different forms of reactors in western/eastern countries but i didn`t know enough to see the difference. I do hope the decades of further experience - as Iantillain pointed out - and the newer technology does indeed make a difference. Lets hope for the best.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Of course, the biggest difference between this and Chernobyl is that the Chernobyl reactor was built using carbon to slow down the excess neutrons not water as is used in the ones here.

But what we do have in Japan is mixed oxide fuel containing plutonium. That wasn't an issue at either TMI or Chernobyl and it raises significantly greater difficulties in this situation.

Depending on how long it's been since those reactors were fueled, there's going to be significant quantities of Pu-239, Pu-240, PU-241 and even some heavier plutonium isotopes in that fuel. That stuff is significantly nastier than the uranium fuel we use. It's far more radioactive than uranium and requires constant cooling even after the reactor is shut down. If it's been a while since refueling there's going to be a decent amount of Pu-241 in there that will really make things a bitch.

Sadly, the crisis will be going on for months. Given the presence of plutonium in the fuel the cleanup is going to take ten to fifteen years and be significantly more complicated and costly than TMI.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[pjorourke]

You are welcome Nina!

Despite all the roadblocks thrown in its path, nuclear power has come a long way since TMI. The US is far and away the largest producer of nuclear electricity (even though it is only 20% of our total power), followed by France -- where it is about 75% of all power.

You might also note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...tion_accidents
"Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plantnatural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.[11][12][13] In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year[15] in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.[16]"