Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (1 Viewer)

[guderian]

Call me a skeptic, but when I see explosions, concrete broken off of the reactors, mentions of "partial" meltdowns, evacuations of all people 12 miles from the explosion, and a plan to get this under control by dumping sea water into the reactor...well yes I fear the worst. Q: Won't sea water completely destroy the reactor? A: Yes, but replacement costs are only $5-7 Billion each. This was always our backup plan. It's right there in the operator manual. Battery backup for 8 hours and then go to the sea water flush.Q: How many reactors are in trouble?A: Well we had some completely offline and they are safe. Of the ones we are using? Well, most are in trouble.Q: This steam you are releasing. It contains Cesium and other harmful chemicals, right?A: We have told you that there is nothing to see here. Everyone will be fine.Q: Is there a plan to get some of these reactors back online soon?A: Hahaha, are you guys making a funny? We are doomed, but we are going to keep this as positive as possible. Hell our stock market is down 4% today as it is. If we start telling the truth, this will kill our markets and real estate. So like we were saying...All is well here. A little mud to clean up from the Tsunami and earthquake, but business as usual for the most part.

From my reading the term "meltdown" has a different meaning to the nuclear industry than it does to the public. As I understand it, it merely means that the rods have melted and not that there's some uncontrolled nuclear reaction that's going to result in some form of major explosion and widespread radiation of thousands of square miles. As far as "killing" the stock market and real estate values, from working in the markets I hear these types of arguments all the time. For minor stuff, I can understand the "let's hide it" argument, but I'm pretty sure that if half of Japan has been irradiated someone will soon figure that out and it will kill their markets and real estate values anyway. The fact is that if you go to CNN.com it shows in a 40-point font "Japan's Nuclear Reactor Problems Mount". Maybe they have a footnote somewhere that thousands of people died from the earthquate/tsunami, but the amount of news that's been devoted to the Nuke problems relative to the number of people that have or may be killed by them compared to the broader catastrophe is a bit astounding.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So clearly the hand wringing over the concerns of a meltdown is completely politically motivated. Nice.How about the plants get under control, hopefully, in the next few days before that starts?

I don't think it's politically motivated. I think it's emotionally motivated, a fear of things we don't understand and which could conceivably harm us. I blame no one for feeling this; I feel it myself. But we can take these fears and channel them into decisions for the future based on reason and science, or we can take these fears and make decisions for the future based on panic and emotion. The choice will be ours, and I have a bad feeling it won't be the right one.

Tim, Do you think dumping sea water to cool the reactors was part of the operation manual? I ask, because they have now done this procedure on three different reactors. When countries are doing stuff by the seat of their pants, I think we all have to be a little concerned, don't we? For people saying there is nothing to see here, when do you think the people within miles of these reactors are going to be allowed back to their homes? Do you envision any area off limits?

I don't think anyone knows.But, this does not appear to be globally catastrophic. Certainly it is a local catastrophe. But, I don't get the sense that this is going to present problems outside the areas of these reactors. The science just does not seem to support a large radioactive cloud that will cross the pacific and cause significant damage in the short or long term. I could be wrong, and I'll admit that I am fascinated/intrigued by the potential of a complete meltdown. I might have a different perspective if I lived on the west coast, but for now, this feels like a tragedy that will be contained within the Japanese islands.I also side with those that say this should encourage nuclear energy options - given that this is about as worst case as you can get with an aging unit - and we still have relatively minimal environmental impact. It would seem that the benefits outweigh the potential harm (not that there is no downside)

 

[igbomb]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade. Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

See, most of your post is reasonable and just converying valid worries. Then you go and throw in your unsubstantiatied, total conjecture that the area will be uninhabitable. That's where the comparison to Ham is so apt. You accuse others of saying 'nothing to see here' and downplaying the real concerns, but then go and throw out some opinion on a scenario for which you frankly have no clue about.

 

[timschochet]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade. Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

Good response, and this is not the same as stating you "fear the worst", which you did yesterday. Glad to see your'e down from the ledge. As to your question, let me repeat that regarding that article, I don't know enough to believe it or not to believe it. But I hope it's true, don't you? When you say it's "prudent" to put things on hold in the nuclear industry "for a little bit", my only concern is that this is exactly what we did after Three Mile Island (which ended up harming no one that we know of) and "a little bit" turned out to be 30 years. I am very much under the impression that the overreaction to Three Mile Island has hurt us demonstrably in terms of our nuclear technology, our supply of energy, our economy, even foreign policy decisions. A similar overreaction will do even more unforseen damage.

 

[shader]

I think this is a serious issue for anyone within 10-20 miles of the reactor, and possibly even more than that. I don't see it as having any issue for the US at all. The one thing I don't understand is this:They keep talking about the "containment" that this reactor has. Well that's all well and good, but hasn't there been explosions at two plants? How do they know that the containment wall is still secure? There is, in my opinion, a high possibility of a decent-sized dead zone in the areas surrounding the plants. Poor Japan. What a horrible tragedy.

No one knows yet how much this will have an effect on the US, and the world. This is still being played out. As to your question of if containment is secure, if it wasn’t we’d know the second it wasn’t. Radiation levels would rise exponentially. And there won’t be a “dead zone” to the surrounding areas as long as the containment vessel holds. The amount of radiation being released currently is very minor compared to the reactor vessel leaking and exposing the rods to the environment and deadly radiation. As for it being a horrible tragedy. It is, but don’t think it is just Japan who suffers. We are not out of the woods yet. We all hope that those plant operators get the necessary fuel, personnel and equipment to execute a plan to alleviate the pressure in the vessel and stop the venting of hazardous steam. God help them.

Ok, I'll edit:I don't think we'll see any direct radiation problems here in the US. To you and Tim's point, yes there will be consequences. All global economies are linked. Japan is going to need a crapload of money and one of the only ways they can get money might be selling all the European and American bonds they have. (They have 800Billion US bonds). Also, I'm sure this will cause a panic STOP cry from all the anti-nuclear energy people.But as for the radiation, I don't think it's something that needs to be worried about way over here on the other side of the Pacific. If you live on the west coast, you might stock up on a few iodine pills or something, if you are worried. But otherwise, oh well.

 

[David Dodds]

I thought someone posted a link that stated that the seawater option was a known plan and in a manual. Not something they just came up with.

Let's assume you are correct here and this is in the operating manual. Can we both agree though that this has to be one of the last possible actions since flooding the chamber with sea water destroys the reactor from ever coming online again? These cost $5B to $7B to rebuild. The very fact that they have done this "hail mary" three times, concerns no one?

 

[shader]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade. Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

See, most of your post is reasonable and just converying valid worries. Then you go and throw in your unsubstantiatied, total conjecture that the area will be uninhabitable. That's where the comparison to Ham is so apt. You accuse others of saying 'nothing to see here' and downplaying the real concerns, but then go and throw out some opinion on a scenario for which you frankly have no clue about.

I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think that the area around the nuclear plants will be uninhabitable for a decade.In situations like these, you have to discern clearly what is happening and read between the lines.

Accepting the Japanese government's press releases as gospel is too far in one direction.

Thinking that this is going to cause radiation problems all over the world is too far in the other direction.

Somewhere in the middle is probably right.

I've heard (not sure if this is true) that they are losing functional video systems at #1. If that is the case, than it is all guesswork.

It's very easy to envision a dead zone for a long, long time in the immediate vicinity of the plants.

 

[David Dodds]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade. Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

Good response, and this is not the same as stating you "fear the worst", which you did yesterday. Glad to see your'e down from the ledge. As to your question, let me repeat that regarding that article, I don't know enough to believe it or not to believe it. But I hope it's true, don't you? When you say it's "prudent" to put things on hold in the nuclear industry "for a little bit", my only concern is that this is exactly what we did after Three Mile Island (which ended up harming no one that we know of) and "a little bit" turned out to be 30 years. I am very much under the impression that the overreaction to Three Mile Island has hurt us demonstrably in terms of our nuclear technology, our supply of energy, our economy, even foreign policy decisions. A similar overreaction will do even more unforseen damage.

Well waiting did get us to not build these GE plants that are now melting so maybe waiting was prudent.

 

[shader]

I would caution people of one thing. There is a map that is being heavily circulated around the internet of radiation flowing through the atmosphere that seems to show that the US will get a heavy dose of radiation. My uncle showed it to me and I've seen it around the net.

Just to caution, that is a bogus map if there ever was one. I doubt anyone here would fall for that, but it has freaked a lot of people out unnecessarily.

The Pacific ocean is huge. Getting massive radiation problems here in the US is highly unlikely. I mean, we used to test them in our own desert...

 

[Incogneto]

Dodds, I don't have a notebook, but you are a Pacific NW guy, right? Are you concerned about this because of the potential fallout? Or are you just concerned about the people of Japan?

I live in Victoria, BC and I am at about a 2.5% worry level. Have you already gotten together an emergency kit?

I am asking this in all seriousness.

 

[Joe Summer]

So, we're at 3 nuclear reactor meltdowns now, right? I've lost track.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I thought someone posted a link that stated that the seawater option was a known plan and in a manual. Not something they just came up with.

Let's assume you are correct here and this is in the operating manual. Can we both agree though that this has to be one of the last possible actions since flooding the chamber with sea water destroys the reactor from ever coming online again? These cost $5B to $7B to rebuild. The very fact that they have done this "hail mary" three times, concerns no one?

Serious question - what do you think the worst case scenario is? Assume a full meltdown of three reactors. What do you think is the environmental/health fallout from that scenario?

 

[David Dodds]

Dodds, I don't have a notebook, but you are a Pacific NW guy, right? Are you concerned about this because of the potential fallout? Or are you just concerned about the people of Japan?I live in Victoria, BC and I am at about a 2.5% worry level. Have you already gotten together an emergency kit?I am asking this in all seriousness.

Yes I live on the West Coast. I doubt the radiation will have any strength by the time it would cross the ocean and get here. I read something that said it would need to get to some 30,000 feet in the sky to get in the jetstream and I don't think anyone believes that has (or will) happen. So I am with everyone else that I think this poses minimal risk to anyone in the US.But I do fear that the radiation that has leaked is way more than "minimal" as is being reported. The fact that our military got a month's dosage 60 miles away as the cloud hit them seems to confirm my suspicions. I am hopeful it continues to disperse away from Japan (into the ocean air) as that is the best scenario for everyone. A sudden wind change would be additional awful news for the people of Japan.I already had an emergency kit at home. I think that's something a lot of us Californians (living in earthquake areas) do. It has water, beef jerky, canned food, blankets, first aid kit, etc. I would rather have that stuff than fight giant lines at the supermarket when an order to flee is given for an earthquake, etc.

 

[igbomb]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade. Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

See, most of your post is reasonable and just converying valid worries. Then you go and throw in your unsubstantiatied, total conjecture that the area will be uninhabitable. That's where the comparison to Ham is so apt. You accuse others of saying 'nothing to see here' and downplaying the real concerns, but then go and throw out some opinion on a scenario for which you frankly have no clue about.

I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think that the area around the nuclear plants will be uninhabitable for a decade.In situations like these, you have to discern clearly what is happening and read between the lines.

Accepting the Japanese government's press releases as gospel is too far in one direction.

Thinking that this is going to cause radiation problems all over the world is too far in the other direction.

Somewhere in the middle is probably right.

I've heard (not sure if this is true) that they are losing functional video systems at #1. If that is the case, than it is all guesswork.

It's very easy to envision a dead zone for a long, long time in the immediate vicinity of the plants.

But do you have any facts whatsoever to suggest that there will be an uninhabitable zone? I'm not arguing the opposite, but I'm just pointing out that people say this with no knowledge of the situation or even the basic chemical reactions involved. Why the need to even make a prediction? Maybe it will be unlivable there, or maybe in two weeks everyone will be back in there homes and cleaning up the place.People hear nuclear meltdown and jump right to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Yet the articles that seem to be the most science-based and knowledgeable that I have encountered suggest that a situation like those is impossible at this point. The chain reaction of uranium fission is stopped. And the radiation being released today has a very, very short half-life.

Again, plenty of cause for concern. I just think it's a little silly to criticize those who don't launch into hysterics while spouting completely unsubstantiated doomsday scenarios in the same post.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I think it speaks volumes that the Japanese were willing to fall on their sword and flood the reactor with untreated seawater. They essentially waved the white flag on ever getting these plants operational again. It is concerning that this operation of venting steam is not sustainable, but they appear to be doing what they can. I don’t know what idiot is saying “nothing to see here”. This is a worldwide environmental calamity and it can’t be ignored.

As much as the area is an earthquake region, no reactors were made to sustain a 9.1 scale earthquake and tsunami. A lot of things are overdesigned and overbuilt, but unfortunately even the best engineering cannot overcome some acts of God. If you think that the Japanese are the only ones who could be flying by the seat of their pants, you are mistaken. There are always situations that are unforeseen, and nothing invented is infallible.

Please, let’s not hijack this thread over the future safety and viability of nuclear power. It almost assumes that the current crisis is afterthought.

 

[BigJohn]

i'm not going to affix a or anything but it doesn't exactly calm my nerves when the military and government are saying "nothing to see here"

not saying zomgCHUDalert but also let's not rush to jerk each other off because the Japanese military said everything was ok.

ican't believe people have forgotten the GW Bush quote, about 20 minutes before the levees broke in N.O. "everything is fine.. pop a lawn chair open, drop a line in the water, drink a cold Pabst and catch you some gator! YEEE! HAW! :snort: :sniff: "

Buzzkill.

 

[cstu]

I think it speaks volumes that the Japanese were willing to fall on their sword and flood the reactor with untreated seawater. They essentially waved the white flag on ever getting these plants operational again. It is concerning that this operation of venting steam is not sustainable, but they appear to be doing what they can. I don’t know what idiot is saying “nothing to see here”. This is a worldwide environmental calamity and it can’t be ignored.

As much as the area is an earthquake region, no reactors were made to sustain a 9.1 scale earthquake and tsunami. A lot of things are overdesigned and overbuilt, but unfortunately even the best engineering cannot overcome some acts of God. If you think that the Japanese are the only ones who could be flying by the seat of their pants, you are mistaken. There are always situations that are unforeseen, and nothing invented is infallible.

Please, let’s not hijack this thread over the future safety and viability of nuclear power. It almost assumes that the current crisis is afterthought.

"That was an act of me alright."

 

[Flyin Pigs]

i'm not going to affix a or anything but it doesn't exactly calm my nerves when the military and government are saying "nothing to see here"

not saying zomgCHUDalert but also let's not rush to jerk each other off because the Japanese military said everything was ok.

ican't believe people have forgotten the GW Bush quote, about 20 minutes before the levees broke in N.O. "everything is fine.. pop a lawn chair open, drop a line in the water, drink a cold Pabst and catch you some gator! YEEE! HAW! :snort: :sniff: "

Buzzkill.

All he's saying is don't rush...

 

[FavreCo]

I think it speaks volumes that the Japanese were willing to fall on their sword and flood the reactor with untreated seawater. They essentially waved the white flag on ever getting these plants operational again. It is concerning that this operation of venting steam is not sustainable, but they appear to be doing what they can. I don’t know what idiot is saying “nothing to see here”. This is a worldwide environmental calamity and it can’t be ignored. As much as the area is an earthquake region, no reactors were made to sustain a 9.1 scale earthquake and tsunami. A lot of things are overdesigned and overbuilt, but unfortunately even the best engineering cannot overcome some acts of God. If you think that the Japanese are the only ones who could be flying by the seat of their pants, you are mistaken. There are always situations that are unforeseen, and nothing invented is infallible. Please, let’s not hijack this thread over the future safety and viability of nuclear power. It almost assumes that the current crisis is afterthought.

Can't wait for Iran to get its Acme Nuclear Reactors off the ground.

 

[El Floppo]

i'm not going to affix a or anything but it doesn't exactly calm my nerves when the military and government are saying "nothing to see here"

not saying zomgCHUDalert but also let's not rush to jerk each other off because the Japanese military said everything was ok.

ican't believe people have forgotten the GW Bush quote, about 20 minutes before the levees broke in N.O. "everything is fine.. pop a lawn chair open, drop a line in the water, drink a cold Pabst and catch you some gator! YEEE! HAW! :snort: :sniff: "

Buzzkill.

All he's saying is don't rush...

 

[GroveDiesel]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade.

Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

Good response, and this is not the same as stating you "fear the worst", which you did yesterday. Glad to see your'e down from the ledge. As to your question, let me repeat that regarding that article, I don't know enough to believe it or not to believe it. But I hope it's true, don't you? When you say it's "prudent" to put things on hold in the nuclear industry "for a little bit", my only concern is that this is exactly what we did after Three Mile Island (which ended up harming no one that we know of) and "a little bit" turned out to be 30 years. I am very much under the impression that the overreaction to Three Mile Island has hurt us demonstrably in terms of our nuclear technology, our supply of energy, our economy, even foreign policy

decisions. A similar overreaction will do even more unforseen damage.

Well waiting did get us to not build these GE plants that are now melting so maybe waiting was prudent.

So what proposed nuclear power plants in the US were to be located anywhere near a fault line capable of an 8.9 earthquake?

 

[Sammy3469]

So what proposed nuclear power plants in the US were to be located anywhere near a fault line capable of an 8.9 earthquake?

well Diablo Canyon sits close to the San Andreas fault

Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake from four faults, including the nearby San Andreas and Hosgri faults.[1] Equipped with advanced seismic monitoring and safety systems, the plant is designed to shut down promptly in the event of significant ground motion.The plant draws its secondary cooling water from the Pacific Ocean, and during heavy storms both units are throttled back by 80 percent to prevent kelp from entering the cooling water intake.

 

[bueno]

Turbines are in the turbine bldg, well away from the reactor bldg. Anything in the reactor bldg has to be contained within ridiculously thick walls. In addition, anything in there is (by definition) radioactive, so doing maintenance is all of a sudden a huuuuge PITA. In other words, unless it absolutely has to be in the reactor bldg, it is not put in there.You have it backwards on circulation, there are fail safes in order to maintain circulation. Without circulation you have meltdown. The rods have to be constantly cooled by water flowing through / over them. Now, you can slow the nuclear release (ie heating) by surrounding the nuclear fuel with graphite rods (which can be lowered / raised to control heat rate). The graphite acts as a moderator that slows down / absorbs neutrons being released. It appears that there may have been a problem with this mechanism for these two reactors.

I mis-spoke actually on the circulation issue, but your engineering knowledge is more current than mine, so I figured I'd ask a leading question or two..Another question for you: back in the Rocky Flats days we used boron rings. Graphite burns - boron doesn't. Of course that was making plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, but the objective was the same. Why did civilian nuclear power go to graphite instead of boron? Any ideas?

Graphite slows neutrons, which is why it's a great moderator; boron is used to absorb neutrons, which is why it's used in shielding.

But in an emergency shutdown situation, boron would work better.

It's not an either/or. You'd never make a pile made of boron. Boron is anti-fission. That's why it's used in control rods and probably seeded in the steel for the pressure vessel and the concrete surrounding the pressure vessel.

Not either or, but high boric acid water pumped into the reactor (assuming you could find some under these conditions) would help to cool the reactor faster.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Holy crap when did wilked get so smart?

between him and Bueno my head nearly exploded. It's funny how guys you usually associate with poker, whisky and :11: suddenly bust out of their meme's and show that they are damn near rocket scientists....:headexplode:

 

[bueno]

Call me a skeptic, but when I see explosions, concrete broken off of the reactors, mentions of "partial" meltdowns, evacuations of all people 12 miles from the explosion, and a plan to get this under control by dumping sea water into the reactor...well yes I fear the worst. Q: Won't sea water completely destroy the reactor? A: Yes, but replacement costs are only $5-7 Billion each. This was always our backup plan. It's right there in the operator manual. Battery backup for 8 hours and then go to the sea water flush.Q: How many reactors are in trouble?A: Well we had some completely offline and they are safe. Of the ones we are using? Well, most are in trouble.Q: This steam you are releasing. It contains Cesium and other harmful chemicals, right?A: We have told you that there is nothing to see here. Everyone will be fine.Q: Is there a plan to get some of these reactors back online soon?A: Hahaha, are you guys making a funny? We are doomed, but we are going to keep this as positive as possible. Hell our stock market is down 4% today as it is. If we start telling the truth, this will kill our markets and real estate. So like we were saying...All is well here. A little mud to clean up from the Tsunami and earthquake, but business as usual for the most part.

Well you obviously don't like uranium. How about lithium?Dodds =

 

[bueno]

BREAKING NEWS: Nuclear officials say a hydrogen blast occured at Fukushima Daiichi plant — AP

They've already said these are harmless and expected right? Media desperate to keep everyone in a frenzy.

Seems to be working with Fennis and Dodds.

How come we haven't heard a peep from Ham? Did Dodds give Ham a TO then posts doomsday posts himself? That's so cruel, man.

Ham up on his roof measuring solar flares with a coathanger and Duracells.

That's okay then. I was worried that Ham might be hiding in a bunker without Internet access. It would be sad if he doesn't know when he can come out, like this Japanese soldier who didn't know WWII was over more than 50 years earlier.

Ham = Blast from the Past? I don't know if my grandkids can handle his boy or not, but after that long underground with Hammy.....

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

"The situation is under control," a prime minister's office spokesman says

Official: A blast could occur in the building housing a reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant

Authorities say there are no indications of dangerously high radiation levels

They have not been able to confirm whether a meltdown has occurred

How is it that they can't confirm if a meltdown occurred. Isn't that what all those fancy dials and Geiger counters are for?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Call me a skeptic, but when I see explosions, concrete broken off of the reactors, mentions of "partial" meltdowns, evacuations of all people 12 miles from the explosion, and a plan to get this under control by dumping sea water into the reactor...well yes I fear the worst. Q: Won't sea water completely destroy the reactor? A: Yes, but replacement costs are only $5-7 Billion each. This was always our backup plan. It's right there in the operator manual. Battery backup for 8 hours and then go to the sea water flush.Q: How many reactors are in trouble?A: Well we had some completely offline and they are safe. Of the ones we are using? Well, most are in trouble.Q: This steam you are releasing. It contains Cesium and other harmful chemicals, right?A: We have told you that there is nothing to see here. Everyone will be fine.Q: Is there a plan to get some of these reactors back online soon?A: Hahaha, are you guys making a funny? We are doomed, but we are going to keep this as positive as possible. Hell our stock market is down 4% today as it is. If we start telling the truth, this will kill our markets and real estate. So like we were saying...All is well here. A little mud to clean up from the Tsunami and earthquake, but business as usual for the most part.

From my reading the term "meltdown" has a different meaning to the nuclear industry than it does to the public. As I understand it, it merely means that the rods have melted and not that there's some uncontrolled nuclear reaction that's going to result in some form of major explosion and widespread radiation of thousands of square miles. As far as "killing" the stock market and real estate values, from working in the markets I hear these types of arguments all the time. For minor stuff, I can understand the "let's hide it" argument, but I'm pretty sure that if half of Japan has been irradiated someone will soon figure that out and it will kill their markets and real estate values anyway. The fact is that if you go to CNN.com it shows in a 40-point font "Japan's Nuclear Reactor Problems Mount". Maybe they have a footnote somewhere that thousands of people died from the earthquate/tsunami, but the amount of news that's been devoted to the Nuke problems relative to the number of people that have or may be killed by them compared to the broader catastrophe is a bit astounding.

Not sure exactly how this works, but I saw on the news that Japanese Banks have made 60 billion dollars available. You would think that the plant/Japanese government/private sector has a big pile of cash ready for a disaster such as this.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster In Japan -- Here's Why

wned:Thanks for posting this.

they added this at some point, But I feel more confident knowing who wrote it than just a smart guy at an business web site.UPDATE: Since posting this, we have learned that it was written by Dr. Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT. It was originally posted here.

 

[shader]

How about Bloomberg for a source, will that work?

http://www.bloomberg...s-correct-.html

It looks like you're searching for reasonable sources that will agree with your premises, which is something I do a lot and then kick myself about later. Earlier in the thread I pasted a Greenpeace article. I did so not because I agreed with it, but because I was hoping to read some rebuttals to its apocalyptic tone. Instead, the answer I received was basically, "Who can trust Greenpeace; they're partisan." This morning I posted a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece which was far more optimistic than the Greenpeace article, and again I didn't post it because it represented my own conclusions (I'm simply not smart enough about these issues to form any conclusion of my own) but because I wanted to see if there were any flaws with it (obviously I'm hopeful they're isn't, but hope is not equal to knowing). So far the only response I got was someone writing "I'd rather not listen to this guy" which is the same response as before.

How are we ever going to resolve anything if we refuse to read anyone who disagrees with us, and go about looking for people who agree with us? This way of thinking is very frustrating to me. It seems like the most important thing for most people is to be right. If it means getting closer to the truth, I would much rather be wrong most of the time (I seem to succeed at this.)

You believe an op-ed piece by someone profiting from a book on nuclear power's virtues? For what's it worth I agree with most everyone that this is contained to Japan only. I do think we are seeing meltdowns though. How much will leak is the billion dollar question. The fact that our military detected radiation 60 miles away is concerning. Hopefully very little radiation will be leaked going forward. But the government has decided to completely destroy three reactors so something serious is definitely happening. In the weeks ahead I fully expect a perimeter to be drawn around these plants and this area will likely not be inhabited for possibly a decade. Personally I don't think the time to have debates about nuclear power are right now. Let's see how this concludes and get a full report of what went wrong. Those issues (and are they correctable) need to be balanced with the safer designs of the new plants. As for putting things on hold in the Nuclear industry for a little bit, I think that's prudent. Just like I don't think it would have been wise to immediately drill in the Gulf without knowing all the things that went wrong there.

See, most of your post is reasonable and just converying valid worries. Then you go and throw in your unsubstantiatied, total conjecture that the area will be uninhabitable. That's where the comparison to Ham is so apt. You accuse others of saying 'nothing to see here' and downplaying the real concerns, but then go and throw out some opinion on a scenario for which you frankly have no clue about.

I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think that the area around the nuclear plants will be uninhabitable for a decade.In situations like these, you have to discern clearly what is happening and read between the lines.

Accepting the Japanese government's press releases as gospel is too far in one direction.

Thinking that this is going to cause radiation problems all over the world is too far in the other direction.

Somewhere in the middle is probably right.

I've heard (not sure if this is true) that they are losing functional video systems at #1. If that is the case, than it is all guesswork.

It's very easy to envision a dead zone for a long, long time in the immediate vicinity of the plants.

But do you have any facts whatsoever to suggest that there will be an uninhabitable zone? I'm not arguing the opposite, but I'm just pointing out that people say this with no knowledge of the situation or even the basic chemical reactions involved. Why the need to even make a prediction? Maybe it will be unlivable there, or maybe in two weeks everyone will be back in there homes and cleaning up the place.People hear nuclear meltdown and jump right to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Yet the articles that seem to be the most science-based and knowledgeable that I have encountered suggest that a situation like those is impossible at this point. The chain reaction of uranium fission is stopped. And the radiation being released today has a very, very short half-life.

Again, plenty of cause for concern. I just think it's a little silly to criticize those who don't launch into hysterics while spouting completely unsubstantiated doomsday scenarios in the same post.

I don't think anyone has any "facts whatsoever" to decide anything. I doubt they knew there were going to be 3 explosions. If things are under control, why is Japan calling in for more help?Things are not under control, and I don't think anyone really knows what is going on.

 

[Random]

I don't think anyone has any "facts whatsoever" to decide anything. I doubt they knew there were going to be 3 explosions. If things are under control, why is Japan calling in for more help?

Things are not under control, and I don't think anyone really knows what is going on.

Do you live under a rock?

 

[bueno]

HamDodds - got any links to real news sources? Note that the links you were posting from your Ham account to Scientology websites do not qualify.

What parts do we disagree with?1. Multiple reactors are down and Japan is saying they are undergoing "partial" meltdowns.2. In one reactor they are destroying it in place by dumping sea water on it as a "hail mary" to cool it down.3. The steam they are creating has to be radioactive (contains cesium) and they are venting that into the air.4. 160,000+ people have been evacuated in a 12 mile radius.6. At least 4 reactors look like they will never be brought back up.7. Hydrogen explosions have happened in one and is predicted in at least a second reactor. The one explosion was so strong that it blew apart the concrete and reinforced steel casing, yet magically did not damage any of the containment facility.8. It's completely safe, but I keep seeing pictures of people from the government in full body suits.9. The energy company in control of this has had multiple violations in the past for not releasing factual info.Again I think I have the same news as everyone. These reactors are in deep trouble. I remain hopeful that they can contain the radiation. That's the best case right now and I hope it completely plays out where people will not be exposed to radiation.

What you seem to be paying attention to is the spin, and a lot of statements made by people like Amy (I think it was) that are not correct. This is not time for emotional handwringing, Are the reactors in deep trouble? Yeah, they are toast. The job now is to keep them cool while the daughter products decay. Thus the need for seawater to cool it, and frankly, the need to replace that seawater when it gets hot to the point where it is no longer cooling the reactor. It is obvious that some fuel rods are leaking. Is it dangerous? Potentially. Worst case is that the fuel melts and collects on the reactor floor (which is designed not to melt) where it will cool. Should very conservative precautions be taken? Yes.Will we have a Chernobyl "dirty bomb" or a China Syndrome? Don't see it happening. If there is a breach, will I be rushing to buy iodine tablets (I live in Washington State). Nope.The real danger here is that emotional reaction like you are exhibiting will destroy a necessary energy source. And this isn't even getting into the difference between these plants and safer, more modern ones. Nuclear is still a great alternative to a coal-fired plant. The irrational fear being generated by the media (and I'll even include Fox in that statement) is going to destroy an industry that we need if we want to wean ourselves from Arab oil.

 

[igbomb]

HamDodds - got any links to real news sources? Note that the links you were posting from your Ham account to Scientology websites do not qualify.

What parts do we disagree with?1. Multiple reactors are down and Japan is saying they are undergoing "partial" meltdowns.2. In one reactor they are destroying it in place by dumping sea water on it as a "hail mary" to cool it down.3. The steam they are creating has to be radioactive (contains cesium) and they are venting that into the air.4. 160,000+ people have been evacuated in a 12 mile radius.6. At least 4 reactors look like they will never be brought back up.7. Hydrogen explosions have happened in one and is predicted in at least a second reactor. The one explosion was so strong that it blew apart the concrete and reinforced steel casing, yet magically did not damage any of the containment facility.8. It's completely safe, but I keep seeing pictures of people from the government in full body suits.9. The energy company in control of this has had multiple violations in the past for not releasing factual info.Again I think I have the same news as everyone. These reactors are in deep trouble. I remain hopeful that they can contain the radiation. That's the best case right now and I hope it completely plays out where people will not be exposed to radiation.

What you seem to be paying attention to is the spin, and a lot of statements made by people like Amy (I think it was) that are not correct. This is not time for emotional handwringing, Are the reactors in deep trouble? Yeah, they are toast. The job now is to keep them cool while the daughter products decay. Thus the need for seawater to cool it, and frankly, the need to replace that seawater when it gets hot to the point where it is no longer cooling the reactor. It is obvious that some fuel rods are leaking. Is it dangerous? Potentially. Worst case is that the fuel melts and collects on the reactor floor (which is designed not to melt) where it will cool. Should very conservative precautions be taken? Yes.Will we have a Chernobyl "dirty bomb" or a China Syndrome? Don't see it happening. If there is a breach, will I be rushing to buy iodine tablets (I live in Washington State). Nope.The real danger here is that emotional reaction like you are exhibiting will destroy a necessary energy source. And this isn't even getting into the difference between these plants and safer, more modern ones. Nuclear is still a great alternative to a coal-fired plant. The irrational fear being generated by the media (and I'll even include Fox in that statement) is going to destroy an industry that we need if we want to wean ourselves from Arab oil.

This make me feel dirty, but...

 

[bueno]

I thought someone posted a link that stated that the seawater option was a known plan and in a manual. Not something they just came up with.

Let's assume you are correct here and this is in the operating manual. Can we both agree though that this has to be one of the last possible actions since flooding the chamber with sea water destroys the reactor from ever coming online again? These cost $5B to $7B to rebuild. The very fact that they have done this "hail mary" three times, concerns no one?

I owuld be more concerned if for some reason they couldn't flood the reactors with sea water, as that would mean they couldn't even try to cool them.

 

[bueno]

HamDodds - got any links to real news sources? Note that the links you were posting from your Ham account to Scientology websites do not qualify.

What parts do we disagree with?1. Multiple reactors are down and Japan is saying they are undergoing "partial" meltdowns.2. In one reactor they are destroying it in place by dumping sea water on it as a "hail mary" to cool it down.3. The steam they are creating has to be radioactive (contains cesium) and they are venting that into the air.4. 160,000+ people have been evacuated in a 12 mile radius.6. At least 4 reactors look like they will never be brought back up.7. Hydrogen explosions have happened in one and is predicted in at least a second reactor. The one explosion was so strong that it blew apart the concrete and reinforced steel casing, yet magically did not damage any of the containment facility.8. It's completely safe, but I keep seeing pictures of people from the government in full body suits.9. The energy company in control of this has had multiple violations in the past for not releasing factual info.Again I think I have the same news as everyone. These reactors are in deep trouble. I remain hopeful that they can contain the radiation. That's the best case right now and I hope it completely plays out where people will not be exposed to radiation.

What you seem to be paying attention to is the spin, and a lot of statements made by people like Amy (I think it was) that are not correct. This is not time for emotional handwringing, Are the reactors in deep trouble? Yeah, they are toast. The job now is to keep them cool while the daughter products decay. Thus the need for seawater to cool it, and frankly, the need to replace that seawater when it gets hot to the point where it is no longer cooling the reactor. It is obvious that some fuel rods are leaking. Is it dangerous? Potentially. Worst case is that the fuel melts and collects on the reactor floor (which is designed not to melt) where it will cool. Should very conservative precautions be taken? Yes.Will we have a Chernobyl "dirty bomb" or a China Syndrome? Don't see it happening. If there is a breach, will I be rushing to buy iodine tablets (I live in Washington State). Nope.The real danger here is that emotional reaction like you are exhibiting will destroy a necessary energy source. And this isn't even getting into the difference between these plants and safer, more modern ones. Nuclear is still a great alternative to a coal-fired plant. The irrational fear being generated by the media (and I'll even include Fox in that statement) is going to destroy an industry that we need if we want to wean ourselves from Arab oil.

This make me feel dirty, but...

Take a lot of showers. It will make you feel cleaner. Just don't use heavy water.

 

[jon_mx]

I would not worry too much about the cost to rebuild these. They were old reactors which were near end of life anyways and would of had to have been replaced soon. The bad part is finding energy solutions in the short term.

 

[Joe T]

Hi. Just checking in.

Bueno is the voice of reason these days?

 

[wilked]

Couple things:

I think Dodds is right that they will 'wall' off a region of Japan, label it uninhabitable for the next XX years. It's speculation, but it makes sense to me.

The use of the world 'meltdown' has very dangerous political meanings, in fact I think it is dangerous to use one way or another. Better to clearly spell out what you mean, as in 'radioactive emission to the environment' or 'nuclear fuel leaking into groundwater'.

I don't see this becoming a world issue, beyond the impact it has on people's opinions of nuclear.

I feel bad for the Japanese, the event as a whole (earthquake / tsunami / nuclear disaster) really hurts them as a nation

 

[bueno]

I just wanted to bring up one more point about detecting fission daughter products out at sea. Because these are low-half life isotopes, they aren't the kinds of things that are found in nature. They can be found around nuclear reactors, which is why many naval vessels have detectors for them. You would be amazed at how sensitive many detectors are - in some cases we can actually count the number of atoms that hits them.

So I am not at all surprised that the daughter products were detected downwind. Nor am I surprised that our exposure limits for naval personnel are so low.

I really get miffed when some reported says "the risk of meltdown is very real" - duh.

 

[bueno]

Hi. Just checking in.Bueno is the voice of reason these days?

Only when I want to be.

 

[wilked]

I would not worry too much about the cost to rebuild these.

You clearly don't grasp the pricetag.Even if they had to be rebuilt, they could have re-used much of the structure. Nuclear is expensive beyond belief. Just because they are at the end of the design years does not mean you kill the golden goose if at all possible

 

[bueno]

Couple things:

I think Dodds is right that they will 'wall' off a region of Japan, label it uninhabitable for the next XX years. It's speculation, but it makes sense to me.

The use of the world 'meltdown' has very dangerous political meanings, in fact I think it is dangerous to use one way or another. Better to clearly spell out what you mean, as in 'radioactive emission to the environment' or 'nuclear fuel leaking into groundwater'.

I don't see this becoming a world issue, beyond the impact it has on people's opinions of nuclear.

I feel bad for the Japanese, the event as a whole (earthquake / tsunami / nuclear disaster) really hurts them as a nation

You surprised me here. I think they will put some kind of seal around the plants themselves, much like they did with the plutonium spill at Rocky Flats in the sixties, but as most fo the radioisotopes are vented into the atmosphere, I don't see a "dead zone" outside of the plant itself as anything other than a very, very, very remote possibility.wilked, did you read the Business Insider article and do you have any comments on it?

 

[Christo]

I would not worry too much about the cost to rebuild these.

You clearly don't grasp the pricetag.Even if they had to be rebuilt, they could have re-used much of the structure. Nuclear is expensive beyond belief. Just because they are at the end of the design years does not mean you kill the golden goose if at all possible

I find that hard to believe. We're talking about nuclear power plants not a classic car. It seems to me they would want to start a new plant from the ground up.

 

[eoMMan]

bueno....what do you do for a living?

 

[wilked]

Couple things:

I think Dodds is right that they will 'wall' off a region of Japan, label it uninhabitable for the next XX years. It's speculation, but it makes sense to me.

The use of the world 'meltdown' has very dangerous political meanings, in fact I think it is dangerous to use one way or another. Better to clearly spell out what you mean, as in 'radioactive emission to the environment' or 'nuclear fuel leaking into groundwater'.

I don't see this becoming a world issue, beyond the impact it has on people's opinions of nuclear.

I feel bad for the Japanese, the event as a whole (earthquake / tsunami / nuclear disaster) really hurts them as a nation

You surprised me here. I think they will put some kind of seal around the plants themselves, much like they did with the plutonium spill at Rocky Flats in the sixties, but as most fo the radioisotopes are vented into the atmosphere, I don't see a "dead zone" outside of the plant itself as anything other than a very, very, very remote possibility.wilked, did you read the Business Insider article and do you have any comments on it?

Link?Didn't read it...I only get an hour or so a day to poke on the internet...

 

[bueno]

17 members from the Ronald Reagan flew through a "plume" from the power plant. Received a dosage equivalent to a month's of natural exposure.

1. Idiots.

2. Because they were able to wash the radiation from their bodies, it would likely be alpha radiation, which has no penetrating power. Even beta radiation is stopped by clothing. Can't remember what daughters are alpha emitters. wilked?

3. Don't see reason for concern here.

I wish that people would stop speculating and just report facts. Getting through all the lies (and there have been mis-truths reported as fact) and spin is annoying.

 

[wilked]

By region I don't mean a huge chunk, but let's say 10-25 miles radius outside of the plants.

Certainly I can't imagine living near it...

 

[bueno]

Couple things:

I think Dodds is right that they will 'wall' off a region of Japan, label it uninhabitable for the next XX years. It's speculation, but it makes sense to me.

The use of the world 'meltdown' has very dangerous political meanings, in fact I think it is dangerous to use one way or another. Better to clearly spell out what you mean, as in 'radioactive emission to the environment' or 'nuclear fuel leaking into groundwater'.

I don't see this becoming a world issue, beyond the impact it has on people's opinions of nuclear.

I feel bad for the Japanese, the event as a whole (earthquake / tsunami / nuclear disaster) really hurts them as a nation

You surprised me here. I think they will put some kind of seal around the plants themselves, much like they did with the plutonium spill at Rocky Flats in the sixties, but as most fo the radioisotopes are vented into the atmosphere, I don't see a "dead zone" outside of the plant itself as anything other than a very, very, very remote possibility.wilked, did you read the Business Insider article and do you have any comments on it?

Link?Didn't read it...I only get an hour or so a day to poke on the internet...

Just for you.

 

[bueno]

By region I don't mean a huge chunk, but let's say 10-25 miles radius outside of the plants.Certainly I can't imagine living near it...

Well, I don't see it as a "dead zone." and 25 miles is larger than the evacuation radius, unless they made it larger overnight..People still live near TMI - I'm just saying....

 

[wilked]

Pretty good article...

The key assumption in all of that is the moderator rods functioning properly and stopping the primary nuclear reactions. I had read (somewhere?) that this did not happen on a couple reactors, or that they were damaged.

He seemed to have a lot of info...more than I had seen elsewhere

So as long as the Japanese are not hiding anything we are ok? ;-)

That's a good voice of reason though...