Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (1 Viewer)

[Charlie Frown]

The news isn't reporting this, but they have been a few days late on virtually everything so far:

At the 40-year-old Fukushima Daiichi unit 1, where an explosion Saturday destroyed a building housing the reactor, the spent fuel pool, in accordance with General Electric’s design, is placed above the reactor. Tokyo Electric said it was trying to figure out how to maintain water levels in the pools, indicating that the normal safety systems there had failed, too. Failure to keep adequate water levels in a pool would lead to a catastrophic fire, said nuclear experts, some of whom think that unit 1’s pool may now be outside.

“That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi unit 1.

People familiar with the plant said there are seven spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi, many of them densely packed.

Gundersen said the unit 1 pool could have as much as 20 years of spent fuel rods, which are still radioactive."

We’d be lucky if we only had to worry about the spent fuel rods from a single holding pool. We’re not that lucky. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven pools for spent fuel rods. Six of these are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building. Each “reactor top” pool holds 3450 fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods.

Thanks for getting us back on track. I am headed back to the bunker.

 

[mcintyre1]

Interesting Q & A type post from a reactor operator at a nuclear facility with similar type of BWR to the Japanese models:

IAmA reactor operator at a Boiling Water Reactor 4, Mark 1. AMA [Ask Me Anything]

 

[Topes]

I heard Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now say much the same (possibility of Chernobyl on steroids) yesterday and this morning.

To this point, nuclear power proponents have been out in full force (see comments here and google "Jay Lehr"), and a common refrain is that this is not Chernobyl. I don't think we know enough yet to believe that they're wrong.

But that's setting the bar a bit low. Chernobyl? If, when this is all over, it's not as bad as Chernobyl, it's a victory. See. Thems nukes is safe.

Chernobyl is the perpetual outlier, the quintessential black swan.

But, even if the Japan situation does turn into Chernobyl, or worse, they will carry on.

The brave workers at Fukushima Daiichi will have become scapegoats, or perhaps the shortsightedness of nuclear planners will. Fukushima will become the new Chernobyl, the outlier tale, but everything's better in France. The Japanese clearly had some issues with corruption and dishonesty, you see.

Hopefully, Arnie Gunderson's worst case scenario does not come to pass. In that case, the meltdowns "events" in Japan will be held as a beacon of how man can overcome and how nuclear power is truly the safest power in the world.

 

[Redwes25]

Pretty decent summary of state of play of things sent to me from a friend whose work relates to nuclear non-proliferation. Gives a decent summary of things.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3870616176/monday-update-on-fukushima-reactors

 

[bueno]

Uneducated simpleton here. Question for those who know more than I do:If there is a total meltdown and these rods break free from containment, what is the long-term situation there? I've read many references to 'uninhabitable' on this board, and am curious if that is a possibility. From what I have read, there is no longer a uranium fission reaction ongoing in these reactors, right? If that's the case, don't all of the subsequent reactions have a very short half-life, relatively? Am I missing something, or does this imply that in some reasonable span of time, with a whole lot of cleanup, this area will be just fine to live in again?

Yes, the fission products have a short half life, but for a lot of them it is measured in days and they produce heat and radiation as they decay. The heat is sufficient to melt the reactor and let radiation escape. That is what they are fighting. No danger of a nuclear blast.

 

[bueno]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UeoVJgTtd6M

Interesting clip. At 2:30 the commentator says the biggest mistake after the backup cooling system failed was that they tried to save the reactor rather than pouring in as much concrete as they could to bury the reactor... that could be the teaching moment.

Serious question, is there concrete "standing by" for such a contingency? I don't know what the surrounding terrain is like going to this place, but wouldn't access to get things like concrete trucks to the disaster be complicated in unimaginable ways given the debris field?

I am guessing here, but I suspect pouring concrete wouldn't work. Concrete needs time to dry and harden. The core would be so hot it would interfere with the curing process.

 

[Sheriff66]

Uneducated simpleton here. Question for those who know more than I do:If there is a total meltdown and these rods break free from containment, what is the long-term situation there? I've read many references to 'uninhabitable' on this board, and am curious if that is a possibility. From what I have read, there is no longer a uranium fission reaction ongoing in these reactors, right? If that's the case, don't all of the subsequent reactions have a very short half-life, relatively? Am I missing something, or does this imply that in some reasonable span of time, with a whole lot of cleanup, this area will be just fine to live in again?

Yes, the fission products have a short half life, but for a lot of them it is measured in days and they produce heat and radiation as they decay. The heat is sufficient to melt the reactor and let radiation escape. That is what they are fighting. No danger of a nuclear blast.

So if the radiation escapes, will it be uninhabitable around the area?

 

[Osaurus]

This will be over by the end of August right? I am going to Alaska and don't need a radioactive suntan assuming a cloud gets that far.

 

[shader]

This will be over by the end of August right? I am going to Alaska and don't need a radioactive suntan assuming a cloud gets that far.

Make sure and send a note to the Japanese that they need to get their stuff together so that you can vacation properly.

 

[bueno]

Uneducated simpleton here. Question for those who know more than I do:If there is a total meltdown and these rods break free from containment, what is the long-term situation there? I've read many references to 'uninhabitable' on this board, and am curious if that is a possibility. From what I have read, there is no longer a uranium fission reaction ongoing in these reactors, right? If that's the case, don't all of the subsequent reactions have a very short half-life, relatively? Am I missing something, or does this imply that in some reasonable span of time, with a whole lot of cleanup, this area will be just fine to live in again?

Yes, the fission products have a short half life, but for a lot of them it is measured in days and they produce heat and radiation as they decay. The heat is sufficient to melt the reactor and let radiation escape. That is what they are fighting. No danger of a nuclear blast.

So if the radiation escapes, will it be uninhabitable around the area?

No, it will not be anywhere near what happened at Chernobyl. The radiation will escape (and is escaping) with steam and is quickly diluted in the atmosphere. Doesn't mean you can't detect it, but because it has such a short half-life, it will all be gone in a matter of weeks.

 

[bueno]

This will be over by the end of August right? I am going to Alaska and don't need a radioactive suntan assuming a cloud gets that far.

Not to burst your bubble, but solar radiation is radiation too.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

Uneducated simpleton here. Question for those who know more than I do:If there is a total meltdown and these rods break free from containment, what is the long-term situation there? I've read many references to 'uninhabitable' on this board, and am curious if that is a possibility. From what I have read, there is no longer a uranium fission reaction ongoing in these reactors, right? If that's the case, don't all of the subsequent reactions have a very short half-life, relatively? Am I missing something, or does this imply that in some reasonable span of time, with a whole lot of cleanup, this area will be just fine to live in again?

Question:If you are an uneducated simpleton, but I didn't understand half the words that you used, what does that make me?

 

[renesauz]

I heard Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now say much the same (possibility of Chernobyl on steroids) yesterday and this morning.

To this point, nuclear power proponents have been out in full force (see comments here and google "Jay Lehr"), and a common refrain is that this is not Chernobyl. I don't think we know enough yet to believe that they're wrong.

But that's setting the bar a bit low. Chernobyl? If, when this is all over, it's not as bad as Chernobyl, it's a victory. See. Thems nukes is safe.

Chernobyl is the perpetual outlier, the quintessential black swan.

But, even if the Japan situation does turn into Chernobyl, or worse, they will carry on.

The brave workers at Fukushima Daiichi will have become scapegoats, or perhaps the shortsightedness of nuclear planners will. Fukushima will become the new Chernobyl, the outlier tale, but everything's better in France. The Japanese clearly had some issues with corruption and dishonesty, you see.

Hopefully, Arnie Gunderson's worst case scenario does not come to pass. In that case, the meltdowns "events" in Japan will be held as a beacon of how man can overcome and how nuclear power is truly the safest power in the world.

The most irritating thing to me is that it could be twice as bad as Chernobyl, and the deaths and environmental impact of nuclear power would still not come even remotely close to the deaths and environmental impact of carbon based plants. More spectacular, but not more damaging.

 

[Biabreakable]

I don't know that the 50 employees are going to likely die, but IMO David is almost certainly right that this small workforce is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and is to be commended for their bravery and sacrifice whether they come out of this unscathed or not.

Nobody here disagreed with that. But thanks.

Are you as condescending to people face to face, as you are behind your keyboard?

What was condescending?

What you said.

 

[Biabreakable]

The quickness that some of you are dismissing the seriousness of this situation with isn't helping. Your best case scenarios and silver linings are articles of faith more than anything else.

 

[pantagrapher]

Interesting and informative NYT graphic on reactor meltdowns

 

[Osaurus]

This will be over by the end of August right? I am going to Alaska and don't need a radioactive suntan assuming a cloud gets that far.

Not to burst your bubble, but solar radiation is radiation too.

Well aware of that thank you.

 

[The Z Machine]

Ditto hookers from Hunter's Point.

I really don't know how many people get this, but I laughed.Not to change the subject too much, but how many years will it be before HP gets gentrified? I'm sure it's already happening on some level, but eventually it's inevitable.

 

[renesauz]

The quickness that some of you are dismissing the seriousness of this situation with isn't helping. Your best case scenarios and silver linings are articles of faith more than anything else.

You're mistaken. The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.Have you not noticed how the media sensationalizes EVERYTHING? A snowstorm becomes a major catastrophe and dominates the news in my area if it cause a 2 hour delay in schools. Yet the media doesn't exagerate and sensationalize something like this???????????A disturbing number of people actually believe a nuc power plant can blow up like an atomic bomb....so yes...cooler heads are needed, even if they try to under-sell the problem, because an ENORMOUS number of people are now, and always have oversold the problem.

 

[JAA]

I heard Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now say much the same (possibility of Chernobyl on steroids) yesterday and this morning.

To this point, nuclear power proponents have been out in full force (see comments here and google "Jay Lehr"), and a common refrain is that this is not Chernobyl. I don't think we know enough yet to believe that they're wrong.

But that's setting the bar a bit low. Chernobyl? If, when this is all over, it's not as bad as Chernobyl, it's a victory. See. Thems nukes is safe.

Chernobyl is the perpetual outlier, the quintessential black swan.

But, even if the Japan situation does turn into Chernobyl, or worse, they will carry on.

The brave workers at Fukushima Daiichi will have become scapegoats, or perhaps the shortsightedness of nuclear planners will. Fukushima will become the new Chernobyl, the outlier tale, but everything's better in France. The Japanese clearly had some issues with corruption and dishonesty, you see.

Hopefully, Arnie Gunderson's worst case scenario does not come to pass. In that case, the meltdowns "events" in Japan will be held as a beacon of how man can overcome and how nuclear power is truly the safest power in the world.

The most irritating thing to me is that it could be twice as bad as Chernobyl, and the deaths and environmental impact of nuclear power would still not come even remotely close to the deaths and environmental impact of carbon based plants. More spectacular, but not more damaging.

I dont understand this. Are you saying the destruction of the carbon based plants as part of the quake/flood is worse than the nuclear issue?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.

You said it was "Deadly serious". How can anything "deadly serious" be overblown by the media? So now it's all thier fault trying to sell stories to us, eh? The media isn't as ignorant as you think. There are a lot of unresolved items and lack of data. Of course they are going to draw some worst case conclusions. I don't fault them for that. Anything less is digging your head in the sand. All this defense of all things nuclear is peculiar in its timing. I have argued repeatedly for it, but it is no panacea. It is not easily dismissed as being less destructive than coal. Consider that coal does not potentially render wide swaths of the earth useless for a thousand years. The tin-foil hat brigade aren't all off the deep end here. They have valid questions and concerns and until they are resolved, their voice should be heard. And they also need to know that those so deeply representing nuclear have personal interests involved.

 

[Slapdash]

I heard Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now say much the same (possibility of Chernobyl on steroids) yesterday and this morning.

To this point, nuclear power proponents have been out in full force (see comments here and google "Jay Lehr"), and a common refrain is that this is not Chernobyl. I don't think we know enough yet to believe that they're wrong.

But that's setting the bar a bit low. Chernobyl? If, when this is all over, it's not as bad as Chernobyl, it's a victory. See. Thems nukes is safe.

Chernobyl is the perpetual outlier, the quintessential black swan.

But, even if the Japan situation does turn into Chernobyl, or worse, they will carry on.

The brave workers at Fukushima Daiichi will have become scapegoats, or perhaps the shortsightedness of nuclear planners will. Fukushima will become the new Chernobyl, the outlier tale, but everything's better in France. The Japanese clearly had some issues with corruption and dishonesty, you see.

Hopefully, Arnie Gunderson's worst case scenario does not come to pass. In that case, the meltdowns "events" in Japan will be held as a beacon of how man can overcome and how nuclear power is truly the safest power in the world.

The most irritating thing to me is that it could be twice as bad as Chernobyl, and the deaths and environmental impact of nuclear power would still not come even remotely close to the deaths and environmental impact of carbon based plants. More spectacular, but not more damaging.

I dont understand this. Are you saying the destruction of the carbon based plants as part of the quake/flood is worse than the nuclear issue?

He is probably talking about the deaths and environmental impact from using carbon-based fuel more generally.

 

[Schlzm]

The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.

You said it was "Deadly serious". How can anything "deadly serious" be overblown by the media? So now it's all thier fault trying to sell stories to us, eh? The media isn't as ignorant as you think. There are a lot of unresolved items and lack of data. Of course they are going to draw some worst case conclusions. I don't fault them for that. Anything less is digging your head in the sand. All this defense of all things nuclear is peculiar in its timing. I have argued repeatedly for it, but it is no panacea. It is not easily dismissed as being less destructive than coal. Consider that coal does not potentially render wide swaths of the earth useless for a thousand years.

The tin-foil hat brigade aren't all off the deep end here. They have valid questions and concerns and until they are resolved, their voice should be heard. And they also need to know that those so deeply representing nuclear have personal interests involved.

To answer your first question the swine flu comes to mind. As for everything else Renesauz is pretty on point with how badly this is being overblown. Local news last night talking about a MELTDOWN!!!!! as if this thing is going to to explode all over the place and kill everything. There is a run on iodine pills in Finland to drive this point home. Also for everyone freaking out about the dangers of nuclear power, the entire US Naval fleet is nuclear powered so keep that in mind. Also these facilities just got their ### kicked by a m9.0 earthquake followed by a very angry and destructive wall of water, it is a miracle of their engineering they are still standing at all!Schlzm

 

[BigJim®]

 

[Raiderfan32904]

To answer your first question the swine flu comes to mind. As for everything else Renesauz is pretty on point with how badly this is being overblown. Local news last night talking about a MELTDOWN!!!!! as if this thing is going to to explode all over the place and kill everything. There is a run on iodine pills in Finland to drive this point home. Also for everyone freaking out about the dangers of nuclear power, the entire US Naval fleet is nuclear powered so keep that in mind. Also these facilities just got their ### kicked by a m9.0 earthquake followed by a very angry and destructive wall of water, it is a miracle of their engineering they are still standing at all!

Schlzm

The swine flu media overhype is a good one, if you were arguing from the getgo that it was not serious. If you thought it wasn't serious, took a stand and said so, then I have no problem with it, really either way. But If you think it is deadly serious in one sentence and then say it's all media hype, it's a contradition don't ya think?

 

[pantagrapher]

Local news last night talking about a MELTDOWN!!!!! as if this thing is going to to explode all over the place and kill everything.

Schlzm

If your local news is making this claim, that's pretty ridiculous. Do they even have anyone qualified to make that claim or are they pulling it out of thin air?Also, I'd read that the runs on iodine—particularly the one in Finland— were due to aid groups preparing for missions to Japan.

 

[Schlzm]

To answer your first question the swine flu comes to mind. As for everything else Renesauz is pretty on point with how badly this is being overblown. Local news last night talking about a MELTDOWN!!!!! as if this thing is going to to explode all over the place and kill everything. There is a run on iodine pills in Finland to drive this point home. Also for everyone freaking out about the dangers of nuclear power, the entire US Naval fleet is nuclear powered so keep that in mind. Also these facilities just got their ### kicked by a m9.0 earthquake followed by a very angry and destructive wall of water, it is a miracle of their engineering they are still standing at all!

Schlzm

The swine flu media overhype is a good one, if you were arguing from the getgo that it was not serious. If you thought it wasn't serious, took a stand and said so, then I have no problem with it, really either way. But If you think it is deadly serious in one sentence and then say it's all media hype, it's a contradition don't ya think?

I am looking at it from the standpoint that it is deadly serious in that it is a very intense situation that needs to be handled quickly to avoid greater localized problems. The media/anti-nuke power groups are taking the approach that it is deadly serious as in a potentially lethal situation for entire pacific rim, which is way overblown. Schlzm

 

[3C's]

Heard this on the drive in. The guy makes a good point regarding the fear mongering and it adding stress to an already stressed out people.

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4585999/this-panic-has-been-horribly-overblown/?playlist_id=164000

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I am looking at it from the standpoint that it is deadly serious in that it is a very intense situation that needs to be handled quickly to avoid greater localized problems. The media/anti-nuke power groups are taking the approach that it is deadly serious as in a potentially lethal situation for entire pacific rim, which is way overblown. Schlzm

Thanks for the response. I don't understand your inference that the media is anti-nuke. I think that people in general fear dangerous things that they don't understand. I think that is a safe reflex action. People want to know what the worst case scenario is. But the variables of this disaster seem to change every hour. The potentially lethal localized condition is one that affects us all. We all want to know where we stand and eventually take a break from this horrible story. I don't think there are a lot of us who enjoy this news cycle. No matter what the media does, we can't not tune in for more updates. So in effect, we do a pretty good job ourselves of "overblowing" the news. It's human nature, and a lot of us (myself included) are nervous.

 

[Schlzm]

I am looking at it from the standpoint that it is deadly serious in that it is a very intense situation that needs to be handled quickly to avoid greater localized problems. The media/anti-nuke power groups are taking the approach that it is deadly serious as in a potentially lethal situation for entire pacific rim, which is way overblown. Schlzm

Thanks for the response. I don't understand your inference that the media is anti-nuke. I think that people in general fear dangerous things that they don't understand. I think that is a safe reflex action. People want to know what the worst case scenario is. But the variables of this disaster seem to change every hour. The potentially lethal localized condition is one that affects us all. We all want to know where we stand and eventually take a break from this horrible story. I don't think there are a lot of us who enjoy this news cycle. No matter what the media does, we can't not tune in for more updates. So in effect, we do a pretty good job ourselves of "overblowing" the news. It's human nature, and a lot of us (myself included) are nervous.

Didn't mean to lump the media in with those persons using this tragedy as a launchpad to attack nuclear power, my apologies. I can fully understand that it is natural for people to fear the worst in any scenario, however those people in a position to disseminate information to the rest of us, I think, should be taking a more measured approach to the story. I can also appreciate the mentality of expect the worst, hope for the best. It's a hard situation to approach, though I think that a lot of peoples fears about a massive nuclear event are unfounded. I could be completely wrong however.Schlzm

 

[bueno]

The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.

You said it was "Deadly serious". How can anything "deadly serious" be overblown by the media? So now it's all thier fault trying to sell stories to us, eh? The media isn't as ignorant as you think. There are a lot of unresolved items and lack of data. Of course they are going to draw some worst case conclusions. I don't fault them for that. Anything less is digging your head in the sand. All this defense of all things nuclear is peculiar in its timing. I have argued repeatedly for it, but it is no panacea. It is not easily dismissed as being less destructive than coal. Consider that coal does not potentially render wide swaths of the earth useless for a thousand years. The tin-foil hat brigade aren't all off the deep end here. They have valid questions and concerns and until they are resolved, their voice should be heard. And they also need to know that those so deeply representing nuclear have personal interests involved.

I have listened to the media. They are as ignorant as I think. Not sure what personal interests you are speaking of.

 

[bueno]

I heard Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now say much the same (possibility of Chernobyl on steroids) yesterday and this morning.

To this point, nuclear power proponents have been out in full force (see comments here and google "Jay Lehr"), and a common refrain is that this is not Chernobyl. I don't think we know enough yet to believe that they're wrong.

But that's setting the bar a bit low. Chernobyl? If, when this is all over, it's not as bad as Chernobyl, it's a victory. See. Thems nukes is safe.

Chernobyl is the perpetual outlier, the quintessential black swan.

But, even if the Japan situation does turn into Chernobyl, or worse, they will carry on.

The brave workers at Fukushima Daiichi will have become scapegoats, or perhaps the shortsightedness of nuclear planners will. Fukushima will become the new Chernobyl, the outlier tale, but everything's better in France. The Japanese clearly had some issues with corruption and dishonesty, you see.

Hopefully, Arnie Gunderson's worst case scenario does not come to pass. In that case, the meltdowns "events" in Japan will be held as a beacon of how man can overcome and how nuclear power is truly the safest power in the world.

The most irritating thing to me is that it could be twice as bad as Chernobyl, and the deaths and environmental impact of nuclear power would still not come even remotely close to the deaths and environmental impact of carbon based plants. More spectacular, but not more damaging.

I dont understand this. Are you saying the destruction of the carbon based plants as part of the quake/flood is worse than the nuclear issue?

He is probably talking about the deaths and environmental impact from using carbon-based fuel more generally.

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I can fully understand that it is natural for people to fear the worst in any scenario, however those people in a position to disseminate information to the rest of us, I think, should be taking a more measured approach to the story. I can also appreciate the mentality of expect the worst, hope for the best. It's a hard situation to approach, though I think that a lot of peoples fears about a massive nuclear event are unfounded. I could be completely wrong however.Schlzm

Thanks Schlzm, for your measured response. There has been a lot of opinions floating about in this thread and the condescending tone of discussion is only amplifying peoples fears. I trust that the powers that be are doing what is necessary to put this behind us. Hope and pray.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.

You said it was "Deadly serious". How can anything "deadly serious" be overblown by the media? So now it's all thier fault trying to sell stories to us, eh? The media isn't as ignorant as you think. There are a lot of unresolved items and lack of data. Of course they are going to draw some worst case conclusions. I don't fault them for that. Anything less is digging your head in the sand. All this defense of all things nuclear is peculiar in its timing. I have argued repeatedly for it, but it is no panacea. It is not easily dismissed as being less destructive than coal. Consider that coal does not potentially render wide swaths of the earth useless for a thousand years. The tin-foil hat brigade aren't all off the deep end here. They have valid questions and concerns and until they are resolved, their voice should be heard. And they also need to know that those so deeply representing nuclear have personal interests involved.

I have listened to the media. They are as ignorant as I think. Not sure what personal interests you are speaking of.

I am talking about you, as a matter of fact. You mentioned some quip about the price of uranium shortly after this happened. Whether to buy or not? I have no interest either way financially. But it seems that you do.

 

[bueno]

4 msv - typical x-ray

400 msv (about what is being detected at the plant and within 18 miles of same): no noticeable effect

5000 msv - dead

Just to put things in perspective.

 

[Jayrod]

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.

 

[pantagrapher]

4 msv - typical x-ray

400 msv (about what is being detected at the plant and within 18 miles of same): no noticeable effect

5000 msv - dead

Just to put things in perspective.

Does this mean it's 100 times the radiation level of an X-ray all day every day?

 

[bueno]

The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.

You said it was "Deadly serious". How can anything "deadly serious" be overblown by the media? So now it's all thier fault trying to sell stories to us, eh? The media isn't as ignorant as you think. There are a lot of unresolved items and lack of data. Of course they are going to draw some worst case conclusions. I don't fault them for that. Anything less is digging your head in the sand. All this defense of all things nuclear is peculiar in its timing. I have argued repeatedly for it, but it is no panacea. It is not easily dismissed as being less destructive than coal. Consider that coal does not potentially render wide swaths of the earth useless for a thousand years. The tin-foil hat brigade aren't all off the deep end here. They have valid questions and concerns and until they are resolved, their voice should be heard. And they also need to know that those so deeply representing nuclear have personal interests involved.

I have listened to the media. They are as ignorant as I think. Not sure what personal interests you are speaking of.

I am talking about you, as a matter of fact. You mentioned some quip about the price of uranium shortly after this happened. Whether to buy or not? I have no interest either way financially. But it seems that you do.

I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that?

 

[Sammy3469]

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

4 msv - typical x-ray400 msv (about what is being detected at the plant and within 18 miles of same): no noticeable effect5000 msv - deadJust to put things in perspective.

The data is incomplete. The rate is expressed as msv/hour. Over what time period is this referencing? NYT said this morning that 7 minutes of 400msv is the limit of US nuclear workers in a year. Said an hour and half (at that rate)is and exposure leads to tangible radiation sickness.

 

[bueno]

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.

People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.

 

[bueno]

4 msv - typical x-ray

400 msv (about what is being detected at the plant and within 18 miles of same): no noticeable effect

5000 msv - dead

Just to put things in perspective.

The data is incomplete. The rate is expressed as msv/hour. Over what time period is this referencing? NYT said this morning that 7 minutes of 400msv is the limit of US nuclear workers in a year. Said an hour and half (at that rate)is and exposure leads to tangible radiation sickness.

The data are incomplete. NYT is missing something somewhere, would have to read the article.

 

[Jayrod]

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.

People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.

This is what you are going with, or is this just ?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that?

You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.

I agree that that particular numerical comparison isn't especially helpful, but weigh the long-run dangers of nuclear power (the occasional Chernobyl) versus the long-run dangers of global warming. Nuclear comes out way, way on top.

 

[bueno]

Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.

Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.

People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.

This is what you are going with, or is this just ?

Let's say a source has provided 100,000 times as much energy as nuclear (that would be true - likely closer to 10, but we'll go with your numbers). 48/100,000 = ).00048. 0/1 = 0. The aggregate argument or the absolute number argument still favors nuclear energy as a safer option.

 

[bueno]

I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that?

You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.

I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The data are incomplete. NYT is missing something somewhere, would have to read the article.

are/is/whatever

the link has been updated since the time I opened it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&hp

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that?

You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.

I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.

beg pardon! I didn't mean to insult you, I doubt that a fantasy football message board has that much impact on anyones energy portfolio.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]