Nuclear Reactors Hit By Earthquake In Japan

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:44 pm

Wikipedia, statistics for 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_safety
In the savety trends paragraph it states the fatalities for the US.
It says 42,000 for 2002.

Edit, here is a more current comparison of countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

The total number of fatalities was 33,800 according to this.
I guess cars got saver...
Still that is a very high number compared to the total number of deaths from nuclear power (civilian)...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:52 pm

wow, I used the wrong column! Now mine is more like 60,000!

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:15 am

Some more perspective, http://xkcd.com/radiation/

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:42 am

But not every one in the US is driving around a nuclear reactor, there is no comparison, it just confuses the risk-benefit analysis to mix them up.

I think the situation with the fireboats is that the only reactor they could have really reached was 4, but 4 wasn't the reactor overheating but the fuel pool, containing some live fuel that was due to go into the reactor. They can't put seawater in the fuel pool because the salt could precipitate out on the rods when the water boils and accumulates to the point that it prevents coolant flow past the rods, exacerbating the situation.

They could have used seawater to run over the reactor exterior (piles) of 1,2 and 3 (in fact they pumped them full of it) but the fireboats can't reach those, as far as I can tell.

Latest is that they have rigged up one of those massive (50 meter) concrete-pouring telescoping arms you see at construction sites, to put the fire cannons closer and give them more control over where the water is going. And now using tanks fitted with dozer blades to shovel radioactive wreckage around and out of the way ... the armour is thick enough to act as shielding against gamma.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:30 pm

Ran across this. Thought people might find it amusing.

Remember back in '50s and early '60s, when we set off something like 900 atomic bombs in Nevada? And how we just let the fallout blow wherever and it landed all over the eastern US? And how it wiped out life as we know it and all that was left from Colorado to the Atlantic were six-legged rats battling two-headed cockroaches in the glowing ruins?

Yeah. Exactly. So shut up with the panic already.

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co ... media.html

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:02 pm

Diogenes wrote:Ran across this. Thought people might find it amusing.

Remember back in '50s and early '60s, when we set off something like 900 atomic bombs in Nevada? And how we just let the fallout blow wherever and it landed all over the eastern US? And how it wiped out life as we know it and all that was left from Colorado to the Atlantic were six-legged rats battling two-headed cockroaches in the glowing ruins?

Yeah. Exactly. So shut up with the panic already.

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co ... media.html

perspective indeed.

CaptainBeowulf · Post by **CaptainBeowulf** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:23 pm

My parents told me about concerns/advisories in the late 50s/early 60s about radioactive materials in food because of nuclear testing. For instance: a lot of strontium-90 in the milk this week, don't buy milk if you don't have to.

Yet, 50 years later my dad is still around with no signs of cancer.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:59 pm

A lot of those "shots" were underground and didn't vent much. Why would we test below ground when we had all that perfectly worthless real-estate out west and fallout was harmless?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:08 pm

First site on Google search shows:

Number of above ground detonations

Code: Select all

nation             #       years          total yield 
United States    216       1945-1962       153.8 mt 
U.S.S.R.         214       1949-1962       281.6 mt 
UK                21       1952-1958        10.8 mt 
France            46       1960-1974        11.4 mt 
P.R.C.            23       1964-1980        21.5 mt 
South Africa       1            1979       0.003 mt

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:50 pm

Yeah, it was not quite 900, but it was a few and they did not really do that much damage (there were a few attributable deaths, but for some you have to stretch things...).
Anyway, I am sure that a single one of these nukes outweighs any nuclear reactor accident imaginable.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:49 am

Anyway, I am sure that a single one of these nukes outweighs any nuclear reactor accident imaginable.

Not quite right, the total mass of radioactive material released in a bomb is on the order of tens to hundreds of kilograms, and is obviously dispersed quite widely and quickly (it's a bomb).

A spent fuel pool may contain hundreds to thousands of tons of radioactive material, Fukushima has 3,400 tons of spent fuel rods in pools, not all of it burning thankfully. Depending on how much of it burns and gets airbourne, waterbourne, vapourised and how concentrated it remains in the local area, a nuclear accident can be much "messier" than a bomb. For the cost, this is why so-called dirty nukes are so effective, as well as the added "terror" element from radiation phobias and unrealistic govt. guidelines on allowable radiation levels immediately triggering panic measures.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:31 am

Not quite right, the total mass of radioactive material released in a bomb is on the order of tens to hundreds of kilograms, and is obviously dispersed quite widely and quickly (it's a bomb).

Wherein is another danger. It can contaminate a wider area.
You are also falsly assuming that a lot of the nuclear fuel at the plant would be spread by an accident. I cant see that happening. It would be comparably little material and of course the event would be much more localized. A nuclear bomb can spread all the radiactive material over hundreds of miles... Even Chernobyl was comparably localized.

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:55 pm

icarus wrote:
Anyway, I am sure that a single one of these nukes outweighs any nuclear reactor accident imaginable.
Not quite right, the total mass of radioactive material released in a bomb is on the order of tens to hundreds of kilograms, and is obviously dispersed quite widely and quickly (it's a bomb).

A spent fuel pool may contain hundreds to thousands of tons of radioactive material, Fukushima has 3,400 tons of spent fuel rods in pools, not all of it burning thankfully. Depending on how much of it burns and gets airbourne, waterbourne, vapourised and how concentrated it remains in the local area, a nuclear accident can be much "messier" than a bomb. For the cost, this is why so-called dirty nukes are so effective, as well as the added "terror" element from radiation phobias and unrealistic govt. guidelines on allowable radiation levels immediately triggering panic measures.

And the bomb is dispersing tens to hundreds of kg worth of highly enriched uranium or plutonium directly into the atmosphere.

Do you honestly expect to see kg's worth of uranium or plutonium being released from the plant, let alone widely dispersed over a large area?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:17 pm

bcglorf wrote:Do you honestly expect to see kg's worth of uranium or plutonium being released from the plant, let alone widely dispersed over a large area?

The Japanese have been reported [by New Scientist] as revealing that the ongoing possibility of criticality is 'non-zero'.

This is because it now turns out that at some stage before the tsunami, they put the whole of No 4 reactor core into the cooling pool.

So.. the answer is; it is a possibility...

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:37 pm

The type of nuclear bomb detination makes a big difference on the fallout. An air burst (where the fireball does not reach the ground) tends to produce a lot less secondary radiation. Also nuclear bombs tend to form mushroom clouds that ascend into the upper atmosphere where it tends to be widely dispersed. A surface burst does this also, though much of the heavier radioactive dust will settle to the ground quickly down wind from the blast.
With widespread (continental to global dispersion the dilluting effect is tremendous. Also, the oceans would add to the already huge dillutional effects by collecting ~ 3/4ths of the radioactive fallout, and dilute (and hide it) further.
The radiation spread through nuclear plant fires, superheated steam explosions, and hot surface convection and wind will disperse the radioactivity in the lower atmosphere and this will settle over much smaller areas, thus it will be greatly more concentrated. The problem is that 'local' dispersion might include areas that would be wider than the width of the Japanese island.
If the molten/ slag nuclear fuel rod elements reach the water table, or even rain runoff, the non atmospheric transport of the radiation is a whole different problem.

Dan Tibbets