FUKUSHIMA earthquake and tsunami thread and aftermath

[_w_]

predictions aren't data, they're what you extrapolate from data

There's one thing I've picked up from the information I have gathered on this subject: we don't know the impact of these various types of radiations on health.

I don't think it is smart to be complacent about things we don't understand.

[DeepLurker]

predictions aren't data, they're what you extrapolate from data

What he's done is akin to my GP saying "You're in great health!" when the report in front of him says that I've got 80% chance of developing a cancer in the next year. But he won't tell me that, because it's a prediction

[cashinmattress]

Told you so.

ZH Link

And once again our prediction about Fukushima (namely the inevitable entombment of the entire facility in thousands of tons of concrete) is about to be realized. Bloomberg reports that Japan will consider pouring concrete into its crippled Fukushima atomic plant to reduce radiation and contain the worst nuclear disaster in 25 years. The reason for the admission of total defeat is the gradual comprehension that the worst case scenario has come to pass: "The risk to workers might be greater than previously thought because melted fuel in the No. 1 reactor building may be causing isolated, uncontrolled nuclear chain reactions, Denis Flory, nuclear safety director for the International Atomic Energy Agency, said at a press conference in Vienna." Not one to cover up the worst case outcome for a week, TEPCO only did so... for five days: "Radioactive chlorine found March 25 in the Unit 1 turbine building suggests chain reactions continued after the reactor shut down, physicist Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California, wrote in a March 28 paper." It's good thought" Radioactive chlorine has a half-life of 37 minutes, according to the report." It appears Japan is willing to give up, and write off a several hundred square kilometer area, as nobody in their right mind will ever agree to move in next to a territory that, contrary to lies, er, promises, will not seep radioactivity in the soil and in the water. This is an unprecedented admission of defeat by the Japanese which unfortunately may be the only solution, which will certainly have major implications for the Japanese economy.

The now much expected spin on this last ditch effort:

Tokyo Electric mixed boron, an element that absorbs neutrons and hinders nuclear fission, with emergency cooling water to prevent accidental chain reactions, Kathryn Higley, head of nuclear engineering and radiation health physics at Oregon State University in Corvallis, said in an e-mail.

Dismantling the plant and decontaminating the site may take 30 years and cost Tokyo Electric more than 1 trillion yen ($12 billion), engineers and analysts said. The government hasn’t ruled out pouring concrete over the whole facility as one way to shut it down, Edano said at a press conference.

Dumping concrete on the plant would serve a second purpose: it would trap contaminated water, said Tony Roulstone, an atomic engineer who directs the University of Cambridge’s masters program in nuclear energy.

How anyone could think the outcome would be anything but following a brief look at the latest overflight of Fukushima is beyond us.

As for what happens after a concrete tomb, which increases the surrounding pressure by orders of magnitude, is put over what now appears is still a live fusion reaction, well, we won't make any predictions. Suffice to say if historical precedent if how TEPCO has handled this situation to date is any indication, expect the sarcophagus to crack, and a 100 km "No Live Zone" radius to be extended around Fukushima in perpetuity.

This facility will never, ever be dismantled in our lifetime, or your great great grandkids lifetimes. It's going to be a nasty memorial to our failed attempt at mastering fission.

also

Japan nuclear crisis: evacuees turned away from shelters

and

Swedish embassy tells citizens to begin taking iodide tablets if within 150 miles of Fukushima — Includes Tokyo

etc... tons of it on the web

This is the worst nuclear incident imaginable, and far worse than Chernobyl for all the naysayers who've argued otherwise.

It's scary, innit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KeSXMTzt6M

[copydude]

I would have thought it was a pretty smart idea, the site is probably littered with radioactive dust. Any cleanup operation will bring this dust back in suspension in the air with greater risks to the cleanup team. If they can fix it the cleanup work should be safer.

But it is only an idea, and sticking radioactive particles to the ground does sound a bit of a long shot, doncha think? Or do you think spray glue would be better, then they'd get the airborne particles too.

Following this idea through, you could put some butter and flour in the reactor water and then roll the particles into sticky buns, which could be easily taken away in lead cake tins.

[_w_]

But it is only an idea, and sticking radioactive particles to the ground does sound a bit of a long shot, doncha think? Or do you think spray glue would be better, then they'd get the airborne particles too.

Ideas is what they need to mitigate the impact of this mess.

Tackling airborne particles is one the priorities, I haven't come across anything better.

[copydude]

Told you so.

Bloomberg reports that Japan will consider pouring concrete into its crippled Fukushima atomic plant to reduce radiation and contain the worst nuclear disaster in 25 years.

This has been reported before, but just as frequently denied.

I assume the (huge) risk of doing this is the same as at Chernobyl. The weight of material might help to push the core through the floor. It might also provide thermal insulation leading to the core reheating.

Anyone?

[needsleep]

This has been reported before, but just as frequently denied.

I assume the (huge) risk of doing this is the same as at Chernobyl. The weight of material might help to push the core through the floor. It might also provide thermal insulation leading to the core reheating.

Anyone?

What is the geology at Fukushima and what secondary containment is there in the reactor buildings? They would surely have to work from above as well as below but are the basement areas of the plant flooded? How will they pump concrete into those and what will they do with tens of thousands of litres of highly radioactive water the concrete would displace? In fact thinking about it if the underground structures are filled with water and the cores melt through into them they are serious ******ed. The resulting steam release could be catastrophic.

[efdemin]

Oh, and I forgot to add: his book "Radiation and Reason" was self-published. Shame Auntie Beeb missed this amusing factoid

They don't mention the self-publishing efforts of the 'scientists' on the other side of this argument either - so at least they're treating them equally.

[efdemin]

From the link to the earlier article about the scientist in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/nuclear-power-irrational-fears).

Note: this is not the scientist himself saying this, but another one interviewed for the article:

Comare, in a rare respite from studying leukaemia clusters at nuclear installations, recently produced a hard-hitting report on sunbeds, calling for a ban on their use by under-18s. "At the minute, it would appear that more people are damaged by sunbeds than by nuclear power in the UK," Elliott said.

Ban sunbeds!

Edited March 31, 2011 by efdemin

[copydude]

Ban sunbeds!

Do you write for the Daily Express, by any chance?

[bazzer]

Then what did you mean by "It seems ironic to me that instead of building safer newer generation nuclear plants due this "evil" and people complaining about them..."?

Seemed pretty clear and binary to me...

How is that solely blaming them? If you read the sentence preceding that one I say "[they] have a lot to answer for". Not "it's all their fault" Please stop putting words into my mouth.

[interestrateripoff]

You couldn't make it up

From Business Week:

So. We just need some glue that lasts thousands of years and some quake-proof curtain material.

Genius.

Radioactive goo here we come. Can they make the resin florescent green?

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12916688

UN nuclear monitors have advised Japan to consider expanding the evacuation zone around the stricken reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

An exclusion zone with a radius of 20km (12 miles) is currently in place but the UN says safe radiation limits have been exceeded 40km away.

The UN adding there weight to the argument to create a larger exclusion zone.

[interestrateripoff]

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82200.html

Radiation fears have prevented authorities from collecting as many as 1,000 bodies of victims of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami from within the 20-kilometer-radius evacuation zone around the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, police sources said Thursday.

I wonder if these bodies will be collected before they rot?

[interestrateripoff]

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82231.html

Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Thursday he will look into reviewing from scratch the existing plan to build more nuclear power facilities by 2030, as a result of the ongoing nuclear crisis.

How will Japan fill it's energy needs if it scraps these plants?

Edited March 31, 2011 by interestrateripoff

[interestrateripoff]

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82212.html

Japan said Thursday it will boost its monitoring of radiation contamination near a crippled nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture and step up measures to evacuate people if necessary, as suggested by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

''We have no plans to immediately evacuate people, but naturally, high radiation levels in soil, if continued over a long period of time...will likely affect human health, so we need to step up our monitoring, and if need be take steps to deal with it,'' Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference.

Edano was referring to findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency that radiation measured at the village of Iitate, about 40 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, exceeded a criterion for evacuation.

Is this an admission they haven't been effectively monitoring radiation levels around the plant?

[interestrateripoff]

quake + Tsunami = 10000+ deaths

reactor incident = 0 deaths. Three have minor burns on the skin. Like the ones you get from that other ball of radiation.

Lots of talk about how they were stupid to not design the reactor better, "of course there'll be a tsunami". "of course there'll be a major earthquake". I've not heard anyone complaining about other building regulations which allowed 10,000 to die. Just the reactor, which survived pretty well I thought.

But the reactor buildings didn't survive very well did they? They lost power which resulted in a few blowing up because of the tsunami. The quake probably fatally damaged 1-4, which is why the buildings blew up, because they couldn't be repaired quickly enough.

Why would anyone complain about building regulations?

Also quake + tsunami deaths, 10000-30000 final total, no one in future will die because of it, reactor incident total deaths unknown and will have to be covered in concrete for millennia, final death total unknown and is therefore unlikely to be 0.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/asia/31workers.html?_r=1&hp

“There were so many ideas, the meeting turned into a panic,” said one longtime Tokyo Electric veteran present that day. He made the comments in an interview with The New York Times, one of several interviews that provided a rare glimpse of the crisis as the company’s workers experienced it. “There were serious arguments between the various sections about whether to go, how to use electrical lines, which facilities to use and so on.”

The quarreling echoed the alarm bells ringing throughout Tokyo Electric, which has been grappling with an unprecedented set of challenges since March 11, when the severe earthquake and massive tsunami upended northeastern Japan.

More at the link.

Total chaos it would seem.

[Bloo Loo]

But the reactor buildings didn't survive very well did they? They lost power which resulted in a few blowing up because of the tsunami. The quake probably fatally damaged 1-4, which is why the buildings blew up, because they couldn't be repaired quickly enough.

Why would anyone complain about building regulations?

Also quake + tsunami deaths, 10000-30000 final total, no one in future will die because of it, reactor incident total deaths unknown and will have to be covered in concrete for millennia, final death total unknown and is therefore unlikely to be 0.

Amazon reporting that deliveries throughout most of Japan are back to normal.

[Odakyu-sen]

Total chaos it would seem.

It need not have been that way. I am just reading through an article on the Asahi Shimbun website http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0330/TKY201103300512.html that say that 30 years ago the Americans conducted simulations using the same GE Mark 1 reactor as the ones at Fukushima. They ran scenarios in which the diesel back-up power supplies were lost, and passed the results on to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use in safety procedures.

Here's what they found when the reactor had to rely on battery power alone (diesel generators knocked out).

バッテリーが４時間使用可能な場合は、停電開始後５時間で「燃料が露出」、５時間半後に「燃料は４８５度に達し、水素も発生」、６時間後に「燃料の溶融（メルトダウン）開始」、７時間後に「圧力容器下部が損傷」、８時間半後に「格納容器損傷」という結果が出た。

The [uS] study concluded that if the batteries give up after 4 hours, then at the 5-hour mark the fuel rods are exposed. At 5 hours 30 minutes the temperature of the fuel rods reaches 485 degrees. After 6 hours, the fuel begins to melt (melt down). At 7 hours there is damage to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. After 8 and a half hours there is damage to the containment vessel.

(The Americans also ran a scenario whereby battery power would last for 6 hours. If that happened, then the fuel rods would be exposed at the 8-hour mark.) This suggests that the operators had very little time to do anything once they lost the diesel generators. They would only have had 6 hours to get portable generators in and wired up (and this with all the roads taken out by the tsunami).

The Asahi article notes:

　一方、福島第一では、地震発生時に外部電源からの電力供給が失われ、非常用のディーゼル発電機に切り替わったが、津波により約１時間後に発電機が止まり、電源は非常用の直流バッテリーだけに。この時点からシミュレーションの条件とほぼ同じ状態になった。

In the case of the Fukushima nuclear power station, the reactors lost their external power supplies when the earthquake hit. The plant switched over to its back-out diesel generators, and they worked, but then the tsunami came an hour later and took out the generators, leaving only emergency battery power. From this point on, the situation was exactly like the one in the US simulation [made back in 1981].

The newspaper notes: 一方、日本では全電源が失われる想定自体、軽視されてきた。It seems that in Japan, no-one thought it possible that the nuclear power station could lose it power supply.

Well boys and girls, there you have it. Simulations done back in the early 1980s of the 'ol Mark 1 reactors losing their power suggested that they would (to use the English vernacular) "spit the dummy." Looks like a failure of imagination got TEPCO in the end. Who would have thought that a power plant could be without power? (Actually, they were doing fine until the tsunami hit.)

Jeff Tracey's team at International Rescue would have come in handy...

Edited March 31, 2011 by Odakyu-sen

[bazzer]

But the reactor buildings didn't survive very well did they? They lost power which resulted in a few blowing up because of the tsunami. The quake probably fatally damaged 1-4, which is why the buildings blew up, because they couldn't be repaired quickly enough.

Why would anyone complain about building regulations?

Well, until there's another quake or tsunami. Which as we keep being told is entirely predictable.

[papag]

You couldn't make it up

From Business Week:

So. We just need some glue that lasts thousands of years and some quake-proof curtain material.

Why the hell didn't they just order it from B&Q when they restored power to the reactors with the power extension cables, would have saved on delivery as well

They are not in control of the situation

[billybong]

It need not have been that way. I am just reading through an article on the Asahi Shimbun website http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0330/TKY201103300512.html that say that 30 years ago the Americans conducted simulations using the same GE Mark 1 reactor as the ones at Fukushima. They ran scenarios in which the diesel back-up power supplies were lost, and passed the results on to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use in safety procedures.

Here's what they found when the reactor had to rely on battery power alone (diesel generators knocked out).

バッテリーが４時間使用可能な場合は、停電開始後５時間で「燃料が露出」、５時間半後に「燃料は４８５度に達し、水素も発生」、６時間後に「燃料の溶融（メルトダウン）開始」、７時間後に「圧力容器下部が損傷」、８時間半後に「格納容器損傷」という結果が出た。

The [uS] study concluded that if the batteries give up after 4 hours, then at the 5-hour mark the fuel rods are exposed. At 5 hours 30 minutes the temperature of the fuel rods reaches 485 degrees. After 6 hours, the fuel begins to melt (melt down). At 7 hours there is damage to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. After 8 and a half hours there is damage to the containment vessel.

(The Americans also ran a scenario whereby battery power would last for 6 hours. If that happened, then the fuel rods would be exposed at the 8-hour mark.) This suggests that the operators had very little time to do anything once they lost the diesel generators. They would only have had 6 hours to get portable generators in and wired up (and this with all the roads taken out by the tsunami).

The Asahi article notes:

　一方、福島第一では、地震発生時に外部電源からの電力供給が失われ、非常用のディーゼル発電機に切り替わったが、津波により約１時間後に発電機が止まり、電源は非常用の直流バッテリーだけに。この時点からシミュレーションの条件とほぼ同じ状態になった。

In the case of the Fukushima nuclear power station, the reactors lost their external power supplies when the earthquake hit. The plant switched over to its back-out diesel generators, and they worked, but then the tsunami came an hour later and took out the generators, leaving only emergency battery power. From this point on, the situation was exactly like the one in the US simulation [made back in 1981].

The newspaper notes: 一方、日本では全電源が失われる想定自体、軽視されてきた。It seems that in Japan, no-one thought it possible that the nuclear power station could lose it power supply.

Well boys and girls, there you have it. Simulations done back in the early 1980s of the 'ol Mark 1 reactors losing their power suggested that they would (to use the English vernacular) "spit the dummy." Looks like a failure of imagination got TEPCO in the end. Who would have thought that a power plant could be without power? (Actually, they were doing fine until the tsunami hit.)

Jeff Tracey's team at International Rescue would have come in handy...

Portrayal for public consumption is that if there's a major crisis an army of on call specialists would be ready to board helicopters (complete with white radiation protection garments, breathing apparatus, big boots and moon helmets) to go straight to the crisis centre along with more equipment than they'd know what to do with - including well maintained spare generators etc stored well away from the crisis site in the safest location possible.

Then there's reality and 3 weeks on.

Edited March 31, 2011 by billybong

[Ruffneck]

It need not have been that way. I am just reading through an article on the Asahi Shimbun website http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0330/TKY201103300512.html that say that 30 years ago the Americans conducted simulations using the same GE Mark 1 reactor as the ones at Fukushima. They ran scenarios in which the diesel back-up power supplies were lost, and passed the results on to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use in safety procedures.

Here's what they found when the reactor had to rely on battery power alone (diesel generators knocked out).

バッテリーが４時間使用可能な場合は、停電開始後５時間で「燃料が露出」、５時間半後に「燃料は４８５度に達し、水素も発生」、６時間後に「燃料の溶融（メルトダウン）開始」、７時間後に「圧力容器下部が損傷」、８時間半後に「格納容器損傷」という結果が出た。

The [uS] study concluded that if the batteries give up after 4 hours, then at the 5-hour mark the fuel rods are exposed. At 5 hours 30 minutes the temperature of the fuel rods reaches 485 degrees. After 6 hours, the fuel begins to melt (melt down). At 7 hours there is damage to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. After 8 and a half hours there is damage to the containment vessel.

(The Americans also ran a scenario whereby battery power would last for 6 hours. If that happened, then the fuel rods would be exposed at the 8-hour mark.) This suggests that the operators had very little time to do anything once they lost the diesel generators. They would only have had 6 hours to get portable generators in and wired up (and this with all the roads taken out by the tsunami).

The Asahi article notes:

　一方、福島第一では、地震発生時に外部電源からの電力供給が失われ、非常用のディーゼル発電機に切り替わったが、津波により約１時間後に発電機が止まり、電源は非常用の直流バッテリーだけに。この時点からシミュレーションの条件とほぼ同じ状態になった。

In the case of the Fukushima nuclear power station, the reactors lost their external power supplies when the earthquake hit. The plant switched over to its back-out diesel generators, and they worked, but then the tsunami came an hour later and took out the generators, leaving only emergency battery power. From this point on, the situation was exactly like the one in the US simulation [made back in 1981].

The newspaper notes: 一方、日本では全電源が失われる想定自体、軽視されてきた。It seems that in Japan, no-one thought it possible that the nuclear power station could lose it power supply.

Well boys and girls, there you have it. Simulations done back in the early 1980s of the 'ol Mark 1 reactors losing their power suggested that they would (to use the English vernacular) "spit the dummy." Looks like a failure of imagination got TEPCO in the end. Who would have thought that a power plant could be without power? (Actually, they were doing fine until the tsunami hit.)

Jeff Tracey's team at International Rescue would have come in handy...

Yes , which begs the question : What does the UN organisation IAEA actually do? They should have been campaigning for decommisioning of these dangerous reactors and changing them with safe ones or at least getting Japan to improve facilites at the plants to stop these things from happening.

IAEA = another completely useless UN arm.Scrap the UN it's a lame duck.

[interestrateripoff]

Yes , which begs the question : What does the UN organisation IAEA actually do? They should have been campaigning for decommisioning of these dangerous reactors and changing them with safe ones or at least getting Japan to improve facilites at the plants to stop these things from happening.

IAEA = another completely useless UN arm.Scrap the UN it's a lame duck.

It should be thought more as a tea/coffee with a meal club all at taxpayers expense of course.

They couldn't possible campaign for safe nuclear reactors as that might make them political and upset certain governments.