User avatar
stasisLAX
Topic Author
Posts: 2924
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:27 am

According to a CNN news flash, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake has just struck Japan (following a 6.6 magnitude quake in the past 12 or so hours). The epicenter of the quake was located just off the coast of Chiba, east of Tokyo. Also, the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has raised the threat level to level 7, after a new fire has erupted in at least one of the damaged reactors. This is the same threat level as the Chernobyl disaster

Such sad news!

[Edited 2011-04-11 17:29:47]
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:28 am

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
According to a CNN news flash, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake has just struck Japan (following a 6.6 magnitude quake in the past 12 or so hours) and the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has raised the threat level to level 7, after a new fire has erupted in at least one of the damaged reactors. This is the same threat level as the Chernobyl disaster

Oh crumbs...

Good thing most of the people were already evacuated from the area.

Although the threat level is the same, I don't think the radiation levels will be. If there were a level 8, Chernobyl would probably qualify for it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:33 am

This is still going to damage a wide area of Japan. The costs for it are giant because of the scarcity of land in Japan. Russia and Ukraine have plenty of land. Japan really needed that land in the evacuation zone. It looks like this will be a problem for >30 years. It is sad.

My friend is a metals inspector. Between the 737 fatigue issues, rusty bridges, and an ultra fine tooth comb inspection of every nuclear plant in the USA, his career looks bright for the next 10 years. His primary business is pipeline inspections, which, as the BP disaster showed... you get the idea. Crazy world.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:59 am

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
Also, the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has raised the threat level to level 7, after a new fire has erupted in at least one of the damaged reactors. This is the same threat level as the Chernobyl disaster

1) I cannot find information on this "raised threat level" anywhere, and it's about as useless as the Homeland Security danger color-code scale anyway. Greenpeace's "experts" have been saying it "should" be an INES 7 for the past month, but they're not the IAEA and they're not exactly unbiased.

2) The fire (in a battery box) was extinguished in seven minutes. Source: CNN.

3) The quake apparently had nothing to do with this fire.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
This is still going to damage a wide area of Japan. The costs for it are giant because of the scarcity of land in Japan. Russia and Ukraine have plenty of land. Japan really needed that land in the evacuation zone. It looks like this will be a problem for >30 years. It is sad.

That's a bit premature. This is nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl. And it won't begin to approach it.

The radiation dose in Fukushima prefecture is currently averaging 2.2 microsieverts per hour, according to the IAEA. That's higher than normal background levels, but not a significant threat to human health. Food will need to be monitored for a long time, but vast swaths of Japan will not be an uninhabitable wasteland.

And that's all I'm going to say about this whole mess. I don't particularly feel like getting flamed into "submission" yet again.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Topic Author
Posts: 2924
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:25 am

Here's a link from Reuters which state that the Kyodo News Agency is reporting that the threat level MAY be raised to level 7 - CNN is reporting on-air that the threat level has been raised to level 7.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...apan-nuclear-idUSTRE73A6EI20110412
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:25 am

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 3):
And that's all I'm going to say about this whole mess. I don't particularly feel like getting flamed into "submission" yet again.

That's fine, and I agree it is not set in stone that there will be a permanent exclusion zone. But look man. This is seeping into groundwater. It's cesium which has a half life of decades. We have not 1 reactor in trouble like Chernobyl, but more than one, plus spent fuel issues. I am just trying to guesstimate what the result is. I don't have any special knowledge. It looks like the situation has hardened and Japan did upgrade the rating to a 7. My 30 year comment was based on the half life issue. Sure, life will go on. But this looks like not just a garden variety accident... but a multiple-sided cascade disaster several times over. We shall see. I am in favor of nuclear power. But GE has to be crapping their pants as they consider the ramifications.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:25 am

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 3):
1) I cannot find information on this "raised threat level" anywhere, and it's about as useless as the Homeland Security danger color-code scale anyway


I caught the headline and jumped to the IAEA website, usually the best source of information, there was nothing there.
However, while I was looking around on the site they seemed to have run out of bandwidth. I suspect there were others with the same though as myself. Any case when I went back to see if there was any more information where I originally saw the declaration of the level 7 and the story had disappeared.

Okie
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:27 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
The costs for it are giant because of the scarcity of land in Japan. Russia and Ukraine have plenty of land. Japan really needed that land in the evacuation zone. It looks like this will be a problem for >30 years. It is sad.

Irresponsible overstatement. There is certainly a lot of agricultural and manufacturing activity in the Tohoku area, but only because development was there. There are comparably significant areas in the Chugoku region that are not as widely developed that could pick up the slack, and given the out-migration from those areas over the last 30 years, those prefectural governments would welcome the business with open arms.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 3):
Food will need to be monitored for a long time, but vast swaths of Japan will not be an uninhabitable wasteland.

Absolutely true. Vast swaths meaning virtually the entire country save for a 50 km stretch near the Fukushima plant.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 3):
I don't particularly feel like getting flamed into "submission" yet again.

People who are so ra-ra about the nuclear issue due to Fukushima are simply willfully ignoring 50 years of established research and science. Kind of like the anti-warming crowd.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Topic Author
Posts: 2924
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:29 am

Quoting okie (Reply 6):
However, while I was looking around on the site they seemed to have run out of bandwidth

Another article on the threat level topic - again from Reuters.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/.../11/us-japan-idUSTRE72A0SS20110411
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:39 am

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 8):
Another article on the threat level topic - again from Reuters.

Yeah, I see that reports seem to be trickling in all the news agencies now. You just must be on the bleeding edge of information!
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:29 am

CNN as of 9:20 PM EDT are saying the threat level "may be raised to level 7" but a decision will not be made until tomorrow.

From CNN article:
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the municipalities are likely to see long-term radiation levels that exceed international safety standards, and he warned that the month-old crisis at Fukushima Daiichi is not yet over.

"Things are relatively more stable, and things are stabilizing," he said. "However, we need to be ready for the possibility that things may turn for the worse."


http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1

Quoting Flighty (Reply 5):
But look man. This is seeping into groundwater. It's cesium which has a half life of decades. We have not 1 reactor in trouble like Chernobyl, but more than one, plus spent fuel issues.

Whatever is seeping is seeping into ground that is in an exchange system with the ocean, so it is more likely that radioactive contaminants will wind up in the ocean, not groundwater that will diffuse inland. Cs indicates fission products which would point I think to broken cladding on spent fuel in the ponds, IMHO. Much better than a containment breach as the inventory is much less.

Much has been made about Pu being found in the ground but it's not clear where that came from. Consider that 6-7 tonnes of Pu was blasted into the stratosphere during atmospheric weapons testing, and has been slowly settling down ever since. You're breathing it in right now. The Pu could be from spent MOX fuel (mixed oxide) or it could be from other sources, and may have been there for a long time. We simply don't know at the moment.

I do not wish to minimise the problem, but the last thing we want to do at the moment is to write off Japan, or a large section of it, as a radioactive wasteland.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:25 am

From IAEA:

Quote:
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Based on a report by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), NISA confirms that no changes have been observed on the readings at the on-site radiation monitoring posts. Workers have been evacuated to the seismic evacuation shelter. Off-site power was lost and water injection pumps for Units 1, 2 and 3 stopped.

NISA confirms later that off-site power was restored and water injection resumed 50 minutes after the earthquake.

Doesn't sound like anything Big and Bad. Well, bigger and badder than it already is, anyway.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:06 am

I guess you can't get a better source than NHK, which is Japan's "PBS":

Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst

Seems we will have to wait a bit to hear why, though:

Quote:

Officials from the agency and the Nuclear Safety Commission will hold a news conference on Tuesday morning to explain the change of evaluation.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:24 am

the funny thing is that I can´t read anything about this in the daily report of the IAEI:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

According to them power was lost for 50 minutes, but was fast restored again, with no changes. While workers had temporarely find refuge in an earthquake shelter, cleaning up operations were continuing. Also no drastic changes in radiation readings (they are still quite low).
So somebody is trying to create panic.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:08 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 13):
So somebody is trying to create panic.

Jan,

Seems that somebody is:

Quote:

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency made the decision on Monday. It says the damaged facilities have been releasing a massive amount of radioactive substances, which are posing a threat to human health and the environment over a wide area.

Something tells me that Japan is ready to give up on the BS that a 20 mile exclusion zone is OK and that it's OK to be dumping radioactive substances into the sea and the air for weeks now.

I don't think it has anything to do with today's aftershocks, it has everything to do with Japan realizing they've been way behind the curve on this thing right from the start.

Not that I am blaming them, no nation on earth could cope with what they are trying to cope with now.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Topic Author
Posts: 2924
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:53 am

Associated Press (via Yahoo News) is now reporting that "Japanese nuclear regulators said the rating was being raised from 5 to 7 — the highest level on an international scale overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency — after new assessments of radiation leaks from the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant since it was disabled by the March 11 tsunami. The new ranking signifies a "major accident" with "wider consequences" than the previous level, including widespread health effects, according to the Vienna-based IAEA."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake

Thus, it seems we have to official reasoning for the upgrade from Level 5 to Level 7 - perhaps the groundwater contamination is worse than originally known?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:57 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
Well, bigger and badder than it already is, anyway.

I totally agree with the last part of your statement. But it may also turn out be an understatement ! Time will tell,as things certainly haven't been getting any better have they ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
no nation on earth could cope with what they are trying to cope with now.

Ok, but just you wait. We'll just keep on building new plants in different countries around the world, until the next Nuclear disaster occurs, claiming that "the disaster" meaning Tsunami, earthquake, whatever, was not foreseeable etc etc etc ...

But don't worry, everything will be OK.

Yeah, pull the other one will you.   

I think we all really need to re- think our use of nuclear energy. This disaster should be a warning, and a BIG one at that.
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:12 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 16):

I think we all really need to re- think our use of nuclear energy. This disaster should be a warning, and a BIG one at that.

Yeah, but the genie won't go back into the bottle so easily.

I heard a news report that pointed out while the 6 failed reactors at Fukushima-Daichi are of course a huge problem, right now there are a total of 19 reactors off-line in Japan. That's why there are rolling power-outs in Tokyo and why the oh-so-dependable Japan Rail just isn't going to be all that dependable for the foreseeable future.

Also, businesses complain that TEPCO can't tell them when/if there will be power outages. If you run a restaurant in Tokyo, what's the point of preparing food all day if there will be no power when your customers show up at dinnertime? Maybe Tokyo will be like Bagdad or most of the rest of the Iraqi cities, with gas powered generators all over the place?

Since trains are so unreliable, most of the businessmen all leave on-time to try to make it home, instead of working the usual heroic Tokyo hours. Yet another reason for restaurants to not to cook lots of food, not to mention the higher level impact of all those workers not putting in their usual hours.

A lot of firms that have the possibility of relocating employees to other places have done so. Most people who have a choice to relocate will do so, not because of their own interests, but because of the fear of possibly causing their children to suffer cancer decades from not. It may not be 100% rational, but there it is, none the less.

So, I guess most of this supports your point, but again, the real issue is what will replace the power that nuclear energy now provides?

[Edited 2011-04-11 23:34:23]
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:21 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 16):
I think we all really need to re- think our use of nuclear energy. This disaster should be a warning, and a BIG one at that.

Sigh, I just don't buy that, and neither do a lot of my friends who live in Tokyo and refuse to relocate.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2988/is-nuclear-power-safe

Food for thought.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:19 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
So, I guess most of this supports your point, but again, the real issue is what will replace the power that nuclear energy now provides?

This is the problem isn't it ?

I guess you and I will have to leave that up to brainier people to work out, but if we can split atoms, send people up to the moon etc, then I think there are other alternatives to be discovered.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Sigh,

Well I read the article with interest and I was starting to learn a lot until the part where is says, "An irregularly shaped "exclusion zone" of about 1,700 square miles around the plant remains off-limits to human habitation, 220,000 people had to be permanently relocated, and agriculture is restricted, but vegetation and wildlife for the most part have thrived.

I understood that authorities were conducting guided tours in and around Chernobyl now, but yet the article states otherwise ?

I'm sorry, but it makes me suspicious as to ALL the "other" called facts, are they really correct or just plain wrong, or even half wrong, dose nothing for the credibility of the article.

Although maybe its just they way I'm reading it, please correct me if wrong ???

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Food for thought.

It is indeed, and maybe the jury's still out on this one, but wouldn't you think its better to err on the side of caution ?
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:23 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):
I understood that authorities were conducting guided tours in and around Chernobyl now, but yet the article states otherwise ?

They are doing so but that doesn't mean people are living there.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):

It is indeed, and maybe the jury's still out on this one, but wouldn't you think its better to err on the side of caution ?

Well yes, which would mean that plants in tsunami zones should have backup power systems resistant to water infiltration - namely the issues at Fukushima with the diesel generators being the last line of defense when the plant's independent power sources could have been used (i.e. the reactors themselves) to provide backup power for the coolant system. The bottom line is nuclear power generation has killed virtually nobody, with the notable exception of Chernobyl. Compared to mining and the regular effects of particulate air pollution from coal burning, I'll take those odds.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:37 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
They are doing so but that doesn't mean people are living there.

But yet the article clearly says there is an exclusion zone, I understand that to mean no entry.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
The bottom line is nuclear power generation has killed virtually nobody,

People keep saying this, yourself included. So why then bother to have, No go area's, in and around Fukushima, if it's as safe as you make out, then why all the fuss and worry ? No one's going to die, thyroid cancer is successfully treated (according to the article) I just don't buy it.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
Fukushima

Fukushima Plant was built in a known risk area near the sea. Why build such a reactor almost on the edge of the coast, close to water, where any contamination, if it occured and it has, would be impossible to contain, sounds pretty naive and green behind the ears to me !

[Edited 2011-04-12 00:39:53]
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:44 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
Why build such a reactor almost on the edge of the coast, close to water, where any contamination, if it occured and it has, would be impossible to contain, sounds pretty naive and green behind the ears to me !

As you know... it was SIX reactors.... a mega nuclear plant complex totaling... what, 5 GW?.... one of the world's larger facilities.... and a large amount of stored nuclear waste on site as well. In an extreme earthquake zone, in a known mega tsunami zone.

With all that said, they would have been ok if their diesel gen sets were robust. Which they were not. This was, while not a worst case scenario, a situation with many outlandishly bad things coming together.

Edit: Interesting to note that, if you combine Fukushima - I (Daiichi) and II (located elsewhere, 7 mi away), the two complexes are about 9 GW and qualify as the world's largest nuclear plant complex. Of course, they are separate. But, still, 10 big reactors in one town. That is a ton of power.

[Edited 2011-04-12 00:58:03]
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:49 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
But yet the article clearly says there is an exclusion zone, I understand that to mean no entry.

That's not what it means. It means no residence or food production.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
No one's going to die, thyroid cancer is successfully treated (according to the article) I just don't buy it.

Why expose people to heightened risk of thyroid cancer when it can be avoided? It's called being pragmatic.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
So why then bother to have, No go area's, in and around Fukushima

Because of the immediate danger of short half-life elements like Cesium-137.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
People keep saying this, yourself included

Because it's true. The Chernobyl accident was gross incompetence. The Fukushima accident was the worst confluence of circumstances - lack of data when the plant was constructed, combined with the largest earthquake and tsunami the country has seen in over 100 years. If everybody built and planned around so-called "100 year events", not much would be affordable would it? Are you meaning to tell me every Australian community has been planned with adequate protection against 100 year floods? That obviously hasn't been the case in Queensland the last couple years now has it?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
Why build such a reactor almost on the edge of the coast, close to water, where any contamination

Nobody had good data on tsunami propagation in the 1960s, much less a monster tsunami of 15 meters' height. They built seawalls with adequate protection against typhoons, a far more regular and oft-occurring threat than tsunami in any case. You conveniently forget that these plants were built at a time when TEPCO was a pubicly-owned company at a time when the Japanese GDP was growing at 10-12% per annum.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:14 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 22):
With all that said, they would have been ok if their diesel gen sets were robust. Which they were not. This was, while not a worst case scenario, a situation with many outlandishly bad things coming together.

Flighty, we know this.

In disaster's unfortunately, a lot of things always seem to "come together" !

That's why I say we shouldn't tempt faith, we will never win against mother rnature, ever !

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
It means no residence

But yet people can go visit, even though they can't live there ?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
confluence of circumstances -

Evey disaster that occurs these days, from fire to flood to Tsunami, seems to be bigger and better than the last that's taken place. And with climate change raining down on us, expect more "bigger and better disasters" and more frequent 1 in a 100 year events.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Are you meaning to tell me every Australian community has been planned with adequate protection against 100 year floods? That obviously hasn't been the case in Queensland the last couple years now has it?

Your spot on !

Its bad.

You will get no argument out of me about the QLD floods and the disastrous state Gov planning laws that permitted building homes and business on low lying lands. The Royal Commission of inquiry has started this week, so stay tuned, but I'm sure you can guess the end result, buck passing !

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Nobody had good data on tsunami propagation in the 1960s,

Japan has a long history of Tsunamis, as it dose earthquakes.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
much less a monster tsunami of 15 meters' height. They built seawalls with adequate protection against typhoons, a far more regular and oft-occurring threat than tsunami in any case.

Actually the wall was only 5.2 meters high. Japan has experienced Tsunamis higher than this in the past.
And the sea wall they did build, didn't even surround the entire plant, there was a massive opening in the middle of it !

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
You conveniently forget that these plants were built at a time when TEPCO was a pubicly-owned company at a time when the Japanese GDP was growing at 10-12% per annum.

Not sure how that has any bearing on this issue ?

[Edited 2011-04-12 01:36:46]
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:56 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
Although the threat level is the same, I don't think the radiation levels will be. If there were a level 8, Chernobyl would probably qualify for it

  . Chernobyl has released about 70,000 TBq of radioactivity, Fukushima is estimated at 7,000 TBq. Plus, the fallout is way more localized than in Chernobyl as there is no hot graphite fire pushing the released activity into high atmospheric layers to be spread out all over Europe.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:07 am

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 3):
The radiation dose in Fukushima prefecture is currently averaging 2.2 microsieverts per hour, according to the IAEA.

The distribution of the contamination is uneven. It is substantially higher in certain areas even at a larger distance form the reactors.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
The bottom line is nuclear power generation has killed virtually nobody, with the notable exception of Chernobyl. Compared to mining and the regular effects of particulate air pollution from coal burning, I'll take those odds.

Highly selective perception. And demonstrably false (Chernobyl alone, plus elevated cancer occurrence downwind of nuclear facilities).

And, of course, it is quite odd to include mining and processing of coal but to exclude it on the nuclear side.

This kind of manipulated argumentation has been going on for decades now.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
The Chernobyl accident was gross incompetence. The Fukushima accident was the worst confluence of circumstances - lack of data when the plant was constructed, combined with the largest earthquake and tsunami the country has seen in over 100 years.

"Gross incompetence" can be found everywhere. Relatively recently one of the german reactors in Biblis just barely scraped by a major accident brought on by crew mistakes.

Not just the Fukushima reactors but probably most of the reactors installed worldwide have grave mistakes built into them on all kinds of levels, in many cases including their location.

The whole point is that the scale of damage in case of an accident does not allow for mistakes.

And as long as humans just can't be stopped making mistakes, large-scale damage as in Chernobyl and Fukushima needs to be recognized as the inevitable consequence of the decision to employ this technology.

The precise causes of each accident will always be individually different. But the overall conclusion remains the same: Fallible humans cannot safely operate a technology as unforgiving a this one.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
If everybody built and planned around so-called "100 year events", not much would be affordable would it? Are you meaning to tell me every Australian community has been planned with adequate protection against 100 year floods? That obviously hasn't been the case in Queensland the last couple years now has it?

That is totally wrong.

"100 year events" in nuclear facilities are of so massive a scale that they escape any hope of ever getting insurance coverage for them – they can and do disrupt entire regions and national economies. And it seems we're talking rather about "25 year events" in total – probably even more frequently with the advancing age of the existing reactors as their reliability tends to degrade substantially over time.

"100 year events" in almost every other area are of incomparably smaller scale and are relatively easily covered by insurance which make it their business to calculate expected damage including rare events. That's all small fry by comparison to nuclear reactors, however, whose damage by far exceeds what any insurance could ever cover.

Plus, of course, they would need to take premiums for such an insurance which would immediately price nuclear energy out of the market.

Truth in pricing is not a friend of nuclear power.

[Edited 2011-04-12 03:10:40]
 
tu204
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:58 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):
But yet people can go visit, even though they can't live there ?

Radiation is cumulative. You can hang around for a day and get a month's worth of exposure, nothing to worry about, but if you live there constantly, you get the idea. There are people permanently living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone however.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):
"Gross incompetence" can be found everywhere. Relatively recently one of the german reactors in Biblis just barely scraped by a major accident brought on by crew mistakes.

Not just the Fukushima reactors but probably most of the reactors installed worldwide have grave mistakes built into them on all kinds of levels, in many cases including their location.

The whole point is that the scale of damage in case of an accident does not allow for mistakes.

Thats what happens when you override common sense (Fukushima) or built in safety protocols (Chernobyl). Fukishima would have been safe had the generators been placed in a flood proof area (common sense considering it is right near an ocean) or not screw around with disabling built in safety protocols that were in place and taking a big piss and a dump on operating procedures (Chernobyl - it was written in the freaking OP manual to not SCRAM the reactor at such low power levels. Nuclear power is safe, as long as competent people are at the helm.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:31 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):
Japan has a long history of Tsunamis, as it dose earthquakes

That's not the point - at the time of construction, there was no reliable propagation data for that area. Even towns in Miyagi that were wiped out by tsunami in the Meiji era were rebuilt in exactly the same location, and destroyed again 3/11, simply because they were excellent locations for commercial fishing operations to be based.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):

Actually the wall was only 5.2 meters high. Japan has experienced Tsunamis higher than this in the past.

Yes but again, not in that precise area.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):
And the sea wall they did build, didn't even surround the entire plant, there was a massive opening in the middle of it !

Ummm, because it was designed for typhoon storm surge, not tsunamis.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 24):
Not sure how that has any bearing on this issue ?

See below.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):
Highly selective perception

As is the notion that simply because of human foibles, nuclear power is unacceptably risky.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):

"Gross incompetence" can be found everywhere. Relatively recently one of the german reactors in Biblis just barely scraped by a major accident brought on by crew mistakes.

Not just the Fukushima reactors but probably most of the reactors installed worldwide have grave mistakes built into them on all kinds of levels, in many cases including their location.

With this attitude, how are you at all capable of setting foot on a commercial airliner? The mind boggles. There is risk in everything - manage it well, and you can mitigate impacts. Obviously the backup power setup at Fukushima was inadequate. Design engineers wanted a more robust system, and they were overruled by government managers who wanted the plant done to GE's simple specs to have the power online ASAP in a growing industrial region. That story has indeed been told before, but has nothing to do with nuclear energy being a fool's errand per se.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):
Fallible humans cannot safely operate a technology as unforgiving a this one.

Somehow the US, USSR, and six other nations managed to hold onto a global inventory of 10,000 nuclear warheads without one ever accidentally being launched at a target. Computers, designed by humans, are entrusted to fly military aircraft that are inherently unstable by design. I would submit there are myriad examples where seemingly unforgiving technologies have been tempered by thoughtful and well-executed design. One cannot simply hit a button at the silo facility and let fly, as it were.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):
Plus, of course, they would need to take premiums for such an insurance which would immediately price nuclear energy out of the market.

I don't think meeting insurance premium requirements was part of the equation in the Japan of the early 1960s, where driving growth was the only game in town.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:38 am

Quoting tu204 (Reply 27):
Thats what happens when you override common sense (Fukushima) or built in safety protocols (Chernobyl). Fukishima would have been safe had the generators been placed in a flood proof area (common sense considering it is right near an ocean) or not screw around with disabling built in safety protocols that were in place and taking a big piss and a dump on operating procedures (Chernobyl - it was written in the freaking OP manual to not SCRAM the reactor at such low power levels. Nuclear power is safe, as long as competent people are at the helm.

No, that conclusion is a mistake.

You cannot enumerate the specific causes of specific accidents or near-accidents and then draw the conclusion that "only" these causes needed to be prevented to make it "safe".

The problem is that you needed to reliably prevent millions of individual risk factors at the same time – through the entire duration of the facility being operated and subsequently deconstructed again.

Apart from the inherent difficulty of preventing human mistakes anywhere – the consequence taken is inevitably that you need to make the technology as mistake-tolerant as possible, which is not really possible with nuclear facilities because there are too many critical paths leading to severe accidents.

Total risk assessment including the probability of each individual risk factor, of resulting problems in aggregate and including the resulting damage does not converge towards anything that could be called "manageable", much less "safe".

The only option is to simply ignore the risks and go that route despite the risks, which is exactly the status quo of the entire nuclear industry.
 
tu204
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:12 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
No, that conclusion is a mistake.

You cannot enumerate the specific causes of specific accidents or near-accidents and then draw the conclusion that "only" these causes needed to be prevented to make it "safe".

The problem is that you needed to reliably prevent millions of individual risk factors at the same time – through the entire duration of the facility being operated and subsequently deconstructed again.

Apart from the inherent difficulty of preventing human mistakes anywhere – the consequence taken is inevitably that you need to make the technology as mistake-tolerant as possible, which is not really possible with nuclear facilities because there are too many critical paths leading to severe accidents.

Total risk assessment including the probability of each individual risk factor, of resulting problems in aggregate and including the resulting damage does not converge towards anything that could be called "manageable", much less "safe".

The only option is to simply ignore the risks and go that route despite the risks, which is exactly the status quo of the entire nuclear industry.

You must have mistaken my post. I agree with you completely. What I was trying to point out is that all nuclear tragedies to this day have been mainly caused by man. We know how the technology works, but we try to find shortcuts around it to make it cheaper and more profitable.
Containment structure at Chernobyl? More oversight?
Higher barrier at Fukushima? You know, it being in a seismic area and near the ocean. Anticipate the worst here, guys!

Nuclear power IS safe as long as the people building and monitoring realise the risk factors and act accordingly.
It must have been cheaper to build a higher retaining wall than the shit we are dealing with now, right?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:47 pm

Quoting tu204 (Reply 30):
Nuclear power IS safe as long as the people building and monitoring realise the risk factors and act accordingly.
It must have been cheaper to build a higher retaining wall than the shit we are dealing with now, right?

Sure. However, you always do a risk assessment and build the structures accordingly. They thought a 6-m-Tsunami would be the worst at Fukushima and they got 14 m. Natural forces simply cannot be pushed entirely into calculations. Nevertheless I think, nuclear power must have its place in today's energy mix. I wonder how many of the newborn nuclear critics after Fukushima are willing to pay 70 to 100% more for their nuclear-less power. After all, the Bhopal chemical accident caused up to 25,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries and made its surroundings more or less useless for human settlements for the coming decades. However, noone is marketing the end of the chemical industry because of that.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:50 pm

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 3):
Greenpeace's "experts" have been saying it "should" be an INES 7 for the past month, but they're not the IAEA and they're not exactly unbiased.

While Greenpeace is indeed not the IAEA, the latter one isn't exactly unbiased as well.
Many people seem to stick to the funny idea the IAEA was some kind of International Atomic Energy Administration; but in fact the last A stands for Agency. IAEA's 'mission' is to promote(!) nuclear energy.
I support the right to arm bears
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:38 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
My friend is a metals inspector.

I thik the phrase is "Busy as a Beirut bricklayer".

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
Kind of like the anti-warming crowd.

Very like the anti warming crowd if I may alter that.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Whatever is seeping is seeping into ground that is in an exchange system with the ocean, so it is more likely that radioactive contaminants will wind up in the ocean, not groundwater that will diffuse inland.

Happily, the net flow of groundwater is OUT into the oceans and not from the shoreline inland. There are probably exceptions, but from limited data on that coastline, the affected area does not look like one of them. The main way to defeat that would be to pump wells in a belt inland from the power station, and I cannot see that as a likely event.   

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Consider that 6-7 tonnes of Pu was blasted into the stratosphere during atmospheric weapons testing, and has been slowly settling down ever since. You're breathing it in right now.

Come on now Connies, you know perfectly well that in addition to all its various isotopes, Pu comes in two varieties, good and bad. Good is ours used for making our bombs and bad is theirs used for making their bombs and for selling to terrrirsts. So we can be confident that the Pu still settling on us will be good Pu, would our governments have it otherwise?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:18 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
They are doing so but that doesn't mean people are living there.

Quite. There are as of this year, not sure of the date, short-length tours of the exclusion area. This does get the visitors really close to the sarcophagus, to my knowledge. It should also be pointed out that all the usual sorts of animals are still thriving in the area. Sampling of the populations has shown a slightly higher mutation rate, that is conceded -- probably deriving from the initial very high dose rates many (now) animal generations ago.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
Well yes, which would mean that plants in tsunami zones should have backup power systems resistant to water infiltration - namely the issues at Fukushima with the diesel generators being the last line of defense when the plant's independent power sources could have been used (i.e. the reactors themselves) to provide backup power for the coolant system. The bottom line is nuclear power generation has killed virtually nobody, with the notable exception of Chernobyl. Compared to mining and the regular effects of particulate air pollution from coal burning, I'll take those odds.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 21):
But yet the article clearly says there is an exclusion zone, I understand that to mean no entry.

Entry is always allowed with appropriate permissions.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Why expose people to heightened risk of thyroid cancer when it can be avoided? It's called being pragmatic.

  

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Because of the immediate danger of short half-life elements like Cesium-137.

Cs-137 has a half-life of about 30.17 years, so it isn't really a short half-life, more medium.

It's worth keeping things in perspective. In Germany after Chernobyl, the mean deposition of Cs-137 was about 1 milligram/sq kilometre. This means that for Germany as a whole, the total deposition of Cs-137 was 500 grams.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 27):
Radiation is cumulative. You can hang around for a day and get a month's worth of exposure, nothing to worry about, but if you live there constantly, you get the idea. There are people permanently living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone however.

Radiation can be cumulative. I for one do not accept the LNT (Linear No Threshold) theory of radiation damage; I do believe, rather, that there is a threshold level beyond which we need to be before any real damage occurs. Remember that we live in a radiation bath environment: cosmic rays are a prime source (and these of course are unregulated) and natural background radiation from Earth, with thorium & radium being principal sources. There are places on the planet with quite significant background radiation levels and no discernible somatic effects on people, plants, or animals.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:22 pm

About the 5-6-7 levels, the problem is that everybody can claim it's such or such level, so Japan was saying for weeks it was a 5 while the IAEA was saying it was a 6 and Greenpeace a 7. Now, it's Japan that has raised the level to 7, not the IAEA. Each reactor accident is rated separately as level 5, the situation as a whole is rated level 7.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
The Chernobyl accident was gross incompetence. The Fukushima accident was the worst confluence of circumstances

Talking about Chernobyl I would suggest that you guys read more about 1986.
Wiki is a good start.

Incompetence? And you are talking about the first country that opened the era of nuclear plants?
The first plant in Obninsk opened in June 1954 is still working. And it's about 60 miles from my place.
And I feel quite secure.
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:43 pm

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 36):
Incompetence? And you are talking about the first country that opened the era of nuclear plants?
The first plant in Obninsk opened in June 1954 is still working. And it's about 60 miles from my place.
And I feel quite secure.

First country that opened the era of nuclear POWER plants FEEDING A POWER GRID...
Obninsk shut down in 2002. It is being slowly defuelled, but that process isn't expected to finish until 2035.

Also the first country to post accidents at INES level 6 (Mayak/Kyshtym) and 7 (Chernobyl)...

And if Chernobyl wasn't incompetence (which it was, just not with the operators, rather with the dimwits who approved the turbine spindown test. There was no excuse for Chernobyl, it was human error), Mayak/Kyshtym certainly was, cooling was known to of failed in the storage tanks and NOTHING was done about it.

It is important to note as well that the FINAL INES rating for Fukushima will not be decided for several months to years.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:30 pm

O, that is exactly what would call the knowledge.
I am not going to go into discussion about turbine test in Chernobyl.
We have a lot of stuff here these days - as this April will be 25 years since the tragedy.

So we'd better follow the present events.
P.S. And thank for reminding of Obninsk plant.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:32 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32):
IAEA's 'mission' is to promote(!) nuclear energy.

Perhaps you haven't actually read the IAEA mission statement:

From http://www.iaea.org/About/mission.html

The IAEA Mission Statement

The International Atomic Energy Agency:

* is an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization, in the United Nations family, that serves as the global focal point for nuclear cooperation;
* assists its Member States, in the context of social and economic goals, in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such technology and knowledge in a sustainable manner to developing Member States;
* develops nuclear safety standards and, based on these standards, promotes the achievement and maintenance of high levels of safety in applications of nuclear energy, as well as the protection of human health and the environment against ionizing radiation;
* verifies through its inspection system that States comply with their commitments, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements, to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
Come on now Connies, you know perfectly well that in addition to all its various isotopes, Pu comes in two varieties, good and bad. Good is ours used for making our bombs and bad is theirs used for making their bombs and for selling to terrrirsts. So we can be confident that the Pu still settling on us will be good Pu, would our governments have it otherwise?

  How could I have forgotten that ?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:56 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 39):
Perhaps you haven't actually read the IAEA mission statement:

I have - even 'between the lines'. Actually, you don't need to dechiffer the 'mission statement', as it clearly states that the IAEA promotes "using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity".

IAEA has always been an advocate of nuclear power and supported nuclear power plants all across the world with money, know-how and political advice.
I support the right to arm bears
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:19 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
That's not the point -

That's exactly the point

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
Yes but again, not in that precise area.

Come now, are you saying they should have built it a little to the left !  
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
Ummm, because it was designed for typhoon storm surge, not tsunamis.

But my POINT is, that Japan has a history of Tsunami, so why build it anywhere near a coast, just seems dumb.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
With this attitude, how are you at all capable of setting foot on a commercial airliner? The mind boggles

It shouldn't.
Its all about what level of risk your about to accept as "acceptable". If a plane crashes, and people die, yes its a terrible thing, but days later after the wreckage is cleaned up, and the funerals have been done, life gose on as normal. THIS DOSE NOT HAPPEN WHEN REACTOR BLOWS. The level of "inconvenience" to society, IMHO is unacceptably risky. and that's not even taking into account the $$$ cost for the associated clean up and future monitoring of the area for many many years. There must be a better way ?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
Design engineers wanted a more robust system, and they were overruled by government managers who wanted the plant done to GE's simple specs to have the power online ASAP in a growing industrial region.

Bingo !
Yes its always down to Human nature, and taking the easiest way, the cheapest way.
We are our own worst enemy, and you have just proven that we humans, cannot be trusted. This will happen again and again. Remember that history has a habit of repeating itself, so why do it !

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
That story has indeed been told before, but has nothing to do with nuclear energy being a fool's errand per se.

Why not ?

I think its got a lot to do with it.

You have just stated, that because the Gov overruled GE and wanted the plant up and running ASAP corners were cut and $$$$ were saved..... Now look where we, and the people of Japan are. Up sh-t creek !

Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
The only option is to simply ignore the risks and go that route despite the risks, which is exactly the status quo of the entire nuclear industry.

And it will come back and bite us on the ass, each and every time!
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:37 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41):
But my POINT is, that Japan has a history of Tsunami, so why build it anywhere near a coast, just seems dumb.

But no Japanese person in the last 100 years has seen one 15 meters high, so how were they supposed to know for sure? Engineers like to have data available to them.

In any case, it was built near the coast for ready access to water.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41):
Now look where we, and the people of Japan are. Up sh-t creek !

We? This is not affecting us. The people of Japan are largely unaffected as well save for shaken confidence in TEPCO and government disaster response. Agriculture is all but stopped for the indefinite future in the area around the plant, but as I've posted, life goes on and that activity will be readily taken up by other areas of the country that have been dying economically for years now. The Fukushima disaster is affecting probably 5% of the Japanese population, and the power demand issues have instigated a careful evaluation of priorities in an economy dominated by excess signage, dazzle lights, and empty office buildings lit all night. For all we know this was a blessing in disguise.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41):
corners were cut and $$$$ were saved

Because they didn't have safeguards and regulations established at the time to prevent it. In Fukui prefecture, there is a plant that had trouble with some systems several times after coming on-line 20 years ago. The plant was shut down for nearly a decade until regulators were positive the kinks had been worked out. It was only brought on-line again a couple of years ago after a safety inspection and readiness program that took over a year to complete.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:09 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 42):
This is not affecting us.

Um, remind me again how many schools were closed in South Korea the other day because of High radiation levels ???

That's what I meant when I said we, meaning "other" nationalities.

Also imports of Japaness food have been suspended to Europe, raw fish, rice etc etc etc

Apple is also affected due to the glass production supply problems.

Do I go on.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 42):
Because they didn't have safeguards and regulations established at the time to prevent it. In Fukui prefecture, there is a plant that had trouble with some systems several times after coming on-line 20 years ago. The plant was shut down for nearly a decade until regulators were positive the kinks had been worked out. It was only brought on-line again a couple of years ago after a safety inspection and readiness program that took over a year to complete.

Whatever.

The point is, that in most disasters, the finger can most likely be pointed back at ourselves.

When plants like this are built, EVERY conceivable safeguard should be adopted, No matter what the cost, at perhaps multiple levels, just to be super sure.

[Edited 2011-04-12 16:13:15]
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:19 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 40):
I have - even 'between the lines'. Actually, you don't need to dechiffer the 'mission statement', as it clearly states that the IAEA promotes "using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity".

The above statement is an interpretation (on your part) of a published mission statement by an agency of the United Nations, entirely subjective. The statement itself enshrines "peaceful and safe" activities in the nuclear technology area as the mission of the IAEA. That statement is objective.

Ergo, you are labelling the drafters (at the very least, perhaps all the staff at most) as liars.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:49 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 43):
Um, remind me again how many schools were closed in South Korea the other day because of High radiation levels ???

Government CYA. The Korean government is highly sensitive to the extreme reactions they get from the populace over any minor instance of perceived or actual incompetence. They were taking the proactive, typically conservative approach that is to be expected in these circumstances. There is little actual danger to the Korean population, if any.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 43):
Also imports of Japaness food have been suspended to Europe, raw fish, rice etc etc etc

Histrionics. People in Bangkok have been refusing to eat sushi for weeks, so much so that restaurant owners have bought giger counters to allow customers to inspect the food themselves. What do you think they found? Japanese fish not from the affected region is perfectly safe. People are blatantly ignoring the facts here and the media pounces on every last mSv reading. It's pathetic.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:51 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 43):
When plants like this are built, EVERY conceivable safeguard should be adopted, No matter what the cost, at perhaps multiple levels, just to be super sure.

It seems like Fukushima was a failure to think clearly about that issue. What to do to make SURE the cooling pumps will operate.

While some here impugn all nuclear power, there may be "totally safe" newer, more modern reactor designs. This is what I hear. Maybe we need to de-certify reactors that are unstable and obsolete.

The key word seems to be "passive safety."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passively_safe

The first airliners were very unsafe. For example the Comet. With experience, we learned to build really safe models. I get the impression the same may be true with nuclear plants.
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:15 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 45):
Government CYA. The Korean government is highly sensitive to the extreme reactions they get from the populace over any minor instance of perceived or actual incompetence. They were taking the proactive, typically conservative approach that is to be expected in these circumstances. There is little actual danger to the Korean population, if any.

You were the one who stated boldly that this Japaneses incident, has not affected anyone. I am merely pointing out to you that your wrong.

It has affected people, in different ways, all around the world.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 45):
Histrionics. People in Bangkok have been refusing to eat sushi for weeks, so much so that restaurant owners have bought giger counters to allow customers to inspect the food themselves. What do you think they found? Japanese fish not from the affected region is perfectly safe. People are blatantly ignoring the facts here and the media pounces on every last mSv reading. It's pathetic.

Listen, histrionics or not, the point is that people all over the place are concerned. Whether or not you think people are silly testing fish from Japan with a giger counter is silly, that's your opinion. I mean, what do you expect people to do, ask the fish itself directly if its been contaminated, or been in a contaminated area lately

And BTW, its not just people from Thailand its all over the world.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 45):
Japanese fish not from the affected region is perfectly safe.

And how do we, the general public ascertain this exactly ? Which fish is and which is not affected, fish don't just swim in one spot FYI.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 46):
The first airliners were very unsafe. For example the Comet. With experience, we learned to build really safe models. I get the impression the same may be true with nuclear plants.

Difference it that airliners, when they crash, don't cause as much havoc to society as a N power plant blowing up dose.

[Edited 2011-04-12 17:24:05]
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:18 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 44):
The above statement is an interpretation (on your part) (...)
The statement itself enshrines "peaceful and safe" activities in the nuclear technology area as the mission of the IAEA.

"Enshrine" is entirely your interpretation which I consider wrong, sorry.
"Enshrine" would mean that all the IAEA does is to retain or preserve nuclear technology. But the organization has always promoted nuclear technology (with the exception of nuclear bombs), even in developing countries; the organization's actions speak a lot louder than the "mission statement" - or at least your interpretation of it.
With that said, you should always read "mission statements" with a bucket full of salt.
Even the distinction between "peaceful" and "weapons" isn't as credible as the IAEA perhaps wants you to believe.

Please note: I don't say the IAEA was evil or bad or whatever. I say the IAEA is not unbiased when it comes to nuclear power.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 44):
Ergo, you are labelling the drafters (at the very least, perhaps all the staff at most) as liars.

"Liars" is too strong a word for two reasons:
1) I am confident that the mission statement clearly states that the IAEA promotes nuclear power. It is truly mind boggling when you think of it. All the time I said the IAEA promotes nuclear power and its mission statement clearly indicates exactly that. Then you come and and accuse me of labeling the drafters (if not all of the people working there) as liars.
2) mission statements always sound better than the truth
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Japan Nuke Plant Accident Raised To Highest Level

Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:38 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 47):
You were the one who stated boldly that this Japaneses incident, has not affected anyone. I am merely pointing out to you that your wrong.

I'm talking about real effects - health, economic, or otherwise. The only thing you have cited that I accept as a real effect is Apple's inability to get their glass supplies. These other effects are all manufactured out of response to erroneous media handling and misinformation.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 47):
Listen, histrionics or not, the point is that people all over the place are concerned.

Concerned because they are listening to media bleating on about perceived dangers that are poorly understood.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 47):
And how do we, the general public ascertain this exactly. Which is and which is not affected, fish don't just swim in one spot FYI.

Do research and be pragmatic. If you're concerned about seafood, call up the restaurant before going and ask where they import from. If it's Japan, ask which area. Look at a map of Japan before calling so that you know where they're talking about. Check to see if local food inspectors are keeping tabs on fish imports from Japan, whatever it takes to make you feel safe, I don't know.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rfields5421 and 13 guests