Nuclear Reactors Hit By Earthquake In Japan

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The problem is that you can not bash "old nuclear" while promoting new nuclear.
I think that the potential damage by nuclear reactors is highly exaggerated. Even Chernobyl only killed 60 people directly and some 4000 might die before their time (some 25 years or more after the desaster).
There were 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, but all but 9 were cured. Given that Chernobyl was an exceptionally terrible desaster with a very, very small chance of happening again, these numbers are not that horrifying at all.
Coal kills hundreds of thousands of people EVERY YEAR.
Even if you disregard all those that die from the health effects of the polution, you end up with hundreds of deaths in mining and transportation accidents every year. Nuclear is much saver in comparison.
Yet, people dont get it. It has been hammered into their heads by anti nuclear lobbyists (coal, oil and "alternative") that nuclear is dangerous and radiation is dangerous and for some reason more dangerous and horrible than anything else....
I mean there are people that smoke some 40 cigarettes a day, living next to a coal power plant and right underneath the highway, that are freaking out over that little bit of radiation from Fukushima that may be reaching Europe...
It is just ridiculous!

I am very much against preserving the status quo, btw. I think that the status quo is a very dangerous thing and it is eating up western society, because democracy favours it, especially in the US.
I would have nothing but new and modern nuclear reactors in serivice, if it was my choice. But it is not. The reality is that politics preserves the status quo because of fear and where we dont have the status quo, it is because of fear. Whoever makes the people most affraid wins.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

Lol... I've heard different from some others here, apparently there have been runs on iodine pills in some towns in North America... there are probably also people making themselves sick guzzling the things.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

apparently there have been runs on iodine pills in some towns in North America... there are probably also people making themselves sick guzzling the things.
exactly what I mean...
It is silly...

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Acquaintance in Japan says long cranes used to pour concrete in highrise constructions are coming but still a few days out.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Unbelievably bad luck for japan;
- japs had recently (in last 6 months) moved more than 1600 tons of spent fuel into holding pools at fukushima, no small feat
- they are just bringing on-line the Rokkasho reprocessing and MOX production facility that would be reprocessing in the relatively near future much of this spent fuel sitting in pools at fukushima (soon to be entombed?)
- the US it seems, are against the reprocessing of spent fuel and using up of plutonium in new fuels
- an interim storage facility for spent fuels before processing is due to come online in 2012
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/csr ... cle-e.html

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... html?rss=1
"The Daiichi complex had a total of 1760 metric tons of fresh and used nuclear fuel on site last year, according to a presentation by its owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco)."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/ ... 63305.html

"The Fukushima Dai-ichi site has a considerable number of fuel rods on hand, according to information provided Thursday by Toyko Electric Power Co., which owns the atomic complex: There are 3,400 tons of fuel in seven spent fuel pools within the six-reactor plant, including one joint pool storing very old fuel from units 3 and 4."

"Japan has recently built a facility to remove the byproducts and reprocess the plutonium and uranium into a substance called MOX for reuse in its reactors.

This was done in part to reduce the amount of spent fuel that is kept onsite at nuclear plants.

Japan's reprocessing plant, in Rokkasho, a village 300 miles (500 kilometers) north of Fukushima, is only starting up, and hasn't yet begun full operation.

Japan started to use MOX in some of its reactors to learn how it affects plant operations. In general, MOX fuel runs hotter than uranium oxide while inside the reactor.

The United States does not reprocess fuel and encourages other countries not to do so because of fears that plutonium recovered in the process could be used to make nuclear weapons."

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/17/1 ... ioned.html
But he said the biggest problem in Japan was not that the plants had Mark I containment systems, but that the nuclear complex lost its power.
"They're all dependent on electricity," Denton said.
With 23 plants in the U.S. still using the Mark I reactors, Bridenbaugh said, "that's of concern."
I believe strongly in the business and economic concept of “moral hazard”. If an investment firm, brokerage house, electric utility or reactor manufacturer makes a financial decision to maximize profit in which there is a potential for downside risk or liability and that decision goes wrong then that institution should bear the full consequence of that downside up to and including being put out of business.

This harsh moral lesson to the other players in the marketplace serves as an object lesson teaching to avoid such risky practices going forward. In not adhering to this paramount first principle of “moral hazard”, society commits a mortal and devastating sin against Capitalism.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Axil wrote: I believe strongly in the business and economic concept of “moral hazard”. If an investment firm, brokerage house, electric utility or reactor manufacturer makes a financial decision to maximize profit in which there is a potential for downside risk or liability and that decision goes wrong then that institution should bear the full consequence of that downside up to and including being put out of business.
It is not a "bank" or a "firm" that is making decisions, it is individuals within said bank or firm.

And while true that the bank or firm should be held liable for ALL real damages (no Price-Anderson Act please), the individuals who MADE the decision should also be held liable too, up to and including the criminal act of neglegent homicide if the deaths are reasonably forseeable and reasonably preventable. This last seldom happens, so the folks who made the bad decisions just go ply their wears in the company that replaces the ruined one.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

I believe such liability was applied to the Bophal(sp?), India cyanide releasing accident that killed several trhousand people, at least within India's' jurisdiction.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/fukush ... .html#more

So it seems that the Tsunami wave that hit the plants was way higher than what the plants were designed for 10 to 12 meters. That caused the largest part of the problems at the plant.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/N ... cident.pdf

A definitive look at the Fukushima affair.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I read that too. So I looked up the history of tsunamis in the region.

The tsunami that struck in the M 7.6 earthquake of 1896 was 38m high... and they designed for 10m high....

duhhh!!!!.....

Criminal, or stupid. Either way, it sounds to me like it should be the subject of a prosecution.. if there is anyone left to prosecute who stays in Japan...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:I agree with you on that one icarus. I dont understand whey they have not brought them in yet. They obviously have them...
Possible explanations:
* Down wind so too hot.
* too far away to get there in time.
* need them more elsewhere.
* water too far from need to be successful. (Need to shoot too far).
* water stream too great, need more finess.
If I can think of 5 in a couple of seconds, there are probbably a dozen more that are real! :wink:

ANTIcarrot
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
Contact:

Post by ANTIcarrot »

Skipjack wrote:The problem is that you can not bash "old nuclear" while promoting new nuclear.
Why not?
Cars with seatbelts are safe!
Cars without seatbelts are not!

See? You can have it both ways.

In fact the nuclear industry's reluctance to criticise itself openly and honestly is one of the problems. Four japanese reactors failed to shut down safely during the recent emergancy. That is unaceptable, irrispective of how bad the emergancy was. Either the design or the management was fundimentally flawed.

So where were the reports saying so?

As far as the public is concerned, the industry has only ever said, "This design is a Ford Pinto and all reactors like it need to be shut down immediately and permanantly," on one occasion. That is not enough to reassure the public. Especially when it sees events like this and doesn't remember you condeming the reactors before.
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The problem is that the public perception of cars and nuclear power are somewhat different.
If you say "this type of nuclear reactor is not save", the reaction of the public will be panic and a call to abandone nuclear power all together (see Germany).
If you say "this car is not save". the reaction by the public is "shrugs".
40,000 people die in car accidents every year in the US allone in contrast to some 4000 people total that might die earlier of Chernobyl (and some 60 people that have died so far).
But the people dont see it that way because it is not perceived that way.
Anyway, I think that anything negatively said about some aspects of nuclear power will result in a negative reflection on nuclear power as a whole. Like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that have effectively delayed any further nuclear power developments by decades, even though the actual effect of these accidents was small.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote: 40,000 people die in car accidents every year in the US allone...
?? I get more like 6000. What is your source please.

Post Reply