Originally Posted By RoadTrip Here is a good (though lengthy) article explaining why the nuclear plants in Japan are not the looming catastrophe that the media is hyping. <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/" target="_blank">http://bravenewclimate.com/201...anation/</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Wow, thanks for posting this. Very interesting stuff - Nuclear Energy Containment 101
Originally Posted By mawnck Unfortunately the article assumes they would be able to keep the rods immersed in seawater. They were unable to do so, and as of this writing there are fears (so far unconfirmed) that one of the reactors is leaking radioactive material after the latest explosion. Nonessential personnel have been evacuated. We discussed in WE earlier what really constitutes a hero. There are a bunch of them at a Japanese nuclear power facility right now. NHK news live feed in English: <a href="http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv" target="_blank">http://www.ustream.tv/channel/...world-tv</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You must not have read the article thoroughly. Even in the event of a complete core meltdown the containment building would hold everything inside. The small amount of radioactivity released after the explosion amounted to not much more than the average person receives from a CT scan, and the type of radioactivity released has an extraordinarily short half-life. Any danger would be minimized within minutes after the release. The workers may be "heroes" but they are carrying out procedures they have been well trained in. No one is flying by the seat of their pants.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Nuclear incidents have something in common with plane accidents. They are both rare but high-profile. When it happens, you'll know about it. Despite the fact that both are safe, some people are against nuclear and air travel despite their fairly good track records. Carbon emissions and car accidents also have something in common. Both are common and dreadful, yet people tend to be relatively less afraid of them. The meltdown is definitely a bad thing, but when you consider the emissions not emitted, and the oil not imported, it was probably a good thing that the facility was constructed. Nuclear has its pros and cons, but it's a good a good transitional fuel as we strive to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Originally Posted By mawnck Everyone within 30 km just ordered to stay indoors, seal all openings, don't run A/C. This from NHK.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Even in the event of a complete core meltdown the containment building would hold everything inside. << I'm not taking much comfort from this notion. The 'outer' containment' buildings have already blown up. The 'inner' containment unit in Reactor 2 may well be compromised and leaking. CNN reports of unconfirmed stories to this Reactor 2 that had a sudden decompression, with a commensuarate increase in pressure in the outer containment building. And when they pump the seawater into the reactor, the water level doesn't rise. Doesn't sound promising, as of right now.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm sorry, but I don't put much stock in the article in the OP at all. Since 1974, I've lived within anywhere from 15 to 70 miles from the San Onofre Nuclear power plant. You learn to educate yourself as a result. Japan just had a fourth reactor catch fire, much less experience explosions. The country is in deep schlitz. Really, really deep schlitz, for a multitude of reasons. How the citizenry has responded is beyond admirable. But as long as the aftershocks keep coming at a 5.0 clip or better, snd they keep having these nuclear issues, it's asinine to think things will be ok there. They're a 7.0 or better away from nuclear hell.
Originally Posted By mawnck The fire is reported out at reactor 4. Big sigh of relief there. If that had been a spent fuel cooling pool ... well, it would've been very bad. (And they wouldn't have been able to put it out.) The cooling pools are one of the most worrisome factors. There's one at every reactor, and at least two of them are now exposed to the outside. They have a week or two to get them cooling again. If events at the reactors prevent that, we have us a major problem. Excellent news source that seems to update faster than most: <a href="http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2" target="_blank">http://live.reuters.com/Event/...thquake2</a> (You can turn off user comments)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip People were evacuated out of "abundance of caution". <<Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.>> LESS than an x-ray folks, less than an e-ray. I assume you know that these are in no way nuclear explosions, they are explosions from the sea water being dumped on the reactors separating into hydrogen and oxygen... a very explosive mixture.
Originally Posted By mawnck RT, that's a mighty old article you're quoting there. Here's the update: >>He (Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano) said the reactor, even though it was unoperational, was believed to be the source of the elevated radiation release because of the hydrogen release that triggered the fire. "Now we are talking about levels that can damage human health. These are readings taken near the area where we believe the releases are happening. Far away, the levels should be lower," he said. "Please do not go outside. Please stay indoors. Please close windows and make your homes airtight. Don't turn on ventilators. Please hang on your laundry indoors," he said.<< >>The radiation level around one of the reactors stood at 400,000 microsiverts per hour, four times higher than the safe level.<< <a href="http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/14/general-as-japan-earthquake_8356270.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap...270.html</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux Sailors on board the USS Ronald Reagan were receiving measurable doses of increased radiation - sixty kilometers away. They moved the ship. Japanese officials are increasing the size of the fallout zone from twenty to thirty kilometers. They're not saying this will be just fine, you are. They're saying stay further away, and if you're in the zone, shelter in place.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, that's a mighty old article you're quoting there. Here's the update:>> The article I q
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, that's a mighty old article you're quoting there.>> Sorry about that... ghost post. The article I quoted was updated 2 hours and 14 minutes ago. I know the situation is serious, but as with everything the media tend to overplay it. The government is rightly being very cautions as is appropriate. It is like in the U.S. when people are evacuated prior to a hurricane even when it is uncertain just where it will make landfall and how powerful it will be when it does.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Sailors on board the USS Ronald Reagan were receiving measurable doses of increased radiation - sixty kilometers away. They moved the ship." I read that the 17 who were contaminated were returning from a mission.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I read that the 17 who were contaminated were returning from a mission." Yes, that's what I read too. When they returned to the ship the radiation was detected and they were quarantined and given the iodine pills. Then, the ship was moved to a safer location, just in case.
Originally Posted By mawnck Some good news: >>TEPCO says the water level at Fukushima Daiichi no.2 reactor is recovering smoothly.<< <a href="http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2" target="_blank">http://live.reuters.com/Event/...thquake2</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc And now CNN is reporting all workers have had to evacuate It's tough to know what to trust or how to understand this stuff. I'm not exactly well versed in nuclear energy. The article RT posted seemed very well reasoned and informed to me, but I also understood after reading it that it's relying on the information available at the time and could either be wrong or change. I'm also suspicious of sensationalist headlines and agenda reporting. (HuffPo, long opposed to nuclear energy, has been especially bad with the hyperbole.) Is there a reason the final containment could fail and this could become the next Chernobyl?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I think there is a real problem here, but it's difficult to separate the reality from the sensational. I've been accused of downplaying the situation because I'm a nuclear foamer or something like that. We have to be very careful in assessing the danger without crossing into the, "OH MY GOD BUY IODINE AND EVACUATE CALIFORNIA" crowd. Seriously, KABC was asking callers yesterday if they were planning on getting out of the West coast... of America. It's insane.
