Need Ed Hartouni's opinion

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 121 - 140 of total 156 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jan 2, 2014 - 04:35pm PT
Way back early in this thread:
From the standpoint of systems engineering, there seemed to be some rather major oversights in designing that reactor complex, sited near the ocean and exposed in a seismically active region with a history of tsunamis.

The tension between government regulations and industry interests did not achieve a safe outcome in this case.

I've been away and just stumbled into this thread. I've only scanned it and I look forward to reading the technical explanations of what the actual radiation levels, exposures and possible effects are. But now for some observations from my domain of expertise.

Ed H and Tom C have both touched on a major miscalculation in the dollar cost of nuclear electric power generation.
One standard risk assessment technique for engineering projects is FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis). A team of domain experts makes a chart of possible system failure modes. All of the modes than can be reasonably imagined. For each failure mode, it's effects are noted.
The Analysis is done by estimating the probability of each failure (including cascading effects) and the cost to repair or mitigate the failure. This is weighed against the cost of reducing the probability of failure or of providing backup systems.

In the systems engineering for Fukushima, I expect this was done. Unfortunately it is now obvious that the FMEA process broke down regarding the seawall and backup electrical system.
They certainly knew there was at least a small probability of a tsunami that would overtop their seawall. They had historical evidence of much larger tsunamis than the one that occurred. But the cost benefit analysis made TWO miscalculations: Given the failure mode of a tsunami overtopping the seawall, they underestimated the effect (consequences) of it even temporarily knocking out the backup power plant.
Secondly, as is now almost certainly the case, they grossly underestimated the total cost of doing business of the failure. The cost of the electricity they can't produce and the cost of lost industrial production across Japanese industry. (I know two people who had Japanese vehicle deliveries delayed by months). And the cost of whatever energy source will replace Fukushima.

I worked in a major pharmaceutical company on new plant engineering. After a very bad experience in Europe, this company added a new dimension to the FMEA. That dimension is Criticality. FMECA.
What is the cost to the entire business of each possible failure mode? For instance, in a pharmaceutical production line, what is the cost not just to repair the failure? What is the cost of lost product during the time the production line is down for repair? (About $1 million per day). What if it's the only production line in the world for this particular product? These are not easy calculations to make. They showed that we had underestimated the cost of not having backups for critical control systems in case of earthquake or flood (the factory was built on reclaimed San Francisco Bay mud).

If TEPCO had considered the criticality of the backup power system and therefore the criticality of the seawall, the seawall would have been built higher and the backup power system would have been better protected in case the seawall DID fail.
However, this would have added to the cost of the facility and the electricity price. You can bet that TEPCO and the Japanese Gov't are now rethinking the life cycle cost of nuclear power generation.

Or look at the $1.4 Billion Russia is now spending to entomb for 100 years the crumbling Chernobyl plant. And what happens in 100 years?
Or the total human and environmental cost?
nah000

climber
canuckistan
Jan 2, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
further to HighTraverse's comments above, the following link is to an article that was posted on reddit a while back. the write up explains some of the behind the scenes decision making that led to the nuclear plant at onagawa having a seawall 46' high and surviving the tsunami with no effective ill effects, while the fukushima plant only had a sewall of 19', resulting in the continuing catastrophe that we have today. and this is also in spite of onagawa being located closer to the earthquake's epicenter than fukushima.

How tenacity, and a wall saved a Japanese nuclear plant from meltdown after tsunami

interesting stuff:

"Matsunaga-san hated bureaucrats," Oshima said. "He said they are like human trash. In your country, too, there are probably bureaucrats or officials who never take final responsibility.

"So Matsunaga's attitude was that you've got to go beyond the regulations," Oshima said. "If you just follow the regulations, you end up with what happened at Fukushima Dai-ichi."
Banquo

climber
Amerricka
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2014 - 11:35pm PT
RADIATION REPORT FROM SANTA CRUZ!!!

It is important to shout in order to catch the attention of those who are working with less than a full deck.

http://www.santacruzwaves.com/videos/santa-cruz-waves-presents-january-2014-radiation-report/
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Jan 7, 2014 - 12:09am PT
yer right... i couldn't care less that the reading on his geiger counter didn't change from his bong breakfast at the parking lot to his bong brunch at the light house.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Jan 7, 2014 - 12:50am PT
A Geiger counter is not the correct instrument to detect the major hazard from Fukushima, which is radioactive micro-particles, in particular plutonium micro-particles. The alpha particles emitted by plutonium will not penetrate your skin or be detected by your meter. The hazard arises from breathing these very small particles, which then continually irradiate lung tissue or even transfer into the blood stream, eventually inducing cancers. However plutonium is also incredibly toxic, and a very small particle can be fatal when introduced into your blood stream. We are being heavily impacted by these, particularly when concentrated in fog or rain. The fact is that you aren't going to detect these except by their effects on our bodies. Running around with a consumer grade Geiger counter just contributes to the cover-up. You can ignore or be unaware of reality, but you won't be able to ignore the effects of this reality.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 7, 2014 - 12:56am PT
Tom, do you have any information on plutonium contamination?
nah000

climber
canuckistan
Jan 7, 2014 - 01:12am PT
nwo2:

i took a look at the info you posted on jan. 2.

the video with suzuki was a good one. he raises concerns that should be answered. for ex: what is the likelihood and what are the consequences of another earthquake and tsunami? why does there not seem to be a concerted effort involving global experts across all relevant fields addressing what either already is, or at least has the potential to be, a global crisis?

but then just below that link you post a graphic that just wastes time. no, the image you posted is not from the new york times [or if it is it's not from the article that has the quote that you posted]. while the quote is from the nyt, if a person actually reads the article it has nothing to do with fukushima.

why spread the kind of crap in the second half of your post, when it makes it so that people ignore all of your posts, [including the first half of a post that has a link to commentary that is actually relevant and worthy of discussion]?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jan 7, 2014 - 01:47am PT
Well at least the tuna r gunna be safe for a while.. who knew being just slightly and completely safely radioactive was so good for the environment...

Idiots won't want to buy you...

carry on brother Tuna!

Might be the best thing that has happened to the Pacific Fisheries ever.
nah000

climber
canuckistan
Jan 7, 2014 - 01:52am PT
nwo2: thanks for the mea culpa. cheers.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jan 7, 2014 - 01:55am PT
Now if we could just get some widely published radiation readings in Yosemite.. all would be very well indeed.

Ya know granite has high amounts of Uranium in it.

High altitude can triple your radiation exposure...

Fukushima radiation is found in Yosemite!

The Mice will kill you too!

YER GUNNA DIE

if you go to Yosemite..

Leave now and go to .. europe or somewhere else.
bvb

Social climber
flagstaff arizona
Jan 7, 2014 - 02:11am PT
All I gotta say is I'm learning Parkour. When the sh#t hits the fan you gotta move fast.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jan 7, 2014 - 02:18am PT
Dude I live in Nevada.. we blew up about 400 nukes right here about 80 miles from LostWages..Many above ground.

Perspective is a useful thing.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jan 7, 2014 - 02:35am PT
Sounds kinda boring...

But I wouldn't worry about it.

OMGZRS!!! A few random Molecules of radioactive isotopes might be out there..

Like.. totally

Not!

Way!

Relax children.. go to school and learn something.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Jan 7, 2014 - 08:03pm PT
I consider Richland Washington to be my home town. Two uncles, two cousins, and myself have all worked at Hanford, the primary production site for Plutonium. My uncle Tom was one of the people who built the site and died of cancer. My uncle Don was chief engineer out there and still lives in Richland with my aunt, who also has thyroid problems. His son, my cousin Fred is a retired navy admiral, specialist in nuclear sub engines. His brother, my cousin, Bob is a senior engineer at the glassification plant to isolate high level rad waste at the Hanford tank farm.

I was co-lead on a joint DOE/EPA program to evaluate sample management issues at all the DOE plants, especially Hanford. I was also the technical lead on the DOE/EPA/DoD SERDP program for modeling spurious radioactive emissions from the weapons programs. I also wrote the DOE policy guidance on handling Plutonium/Beryllium Lab Sources. However I don't consider myself an expert, just that I know people and can understand and explain things pretty well.

My uncle Don was in charge of the high level rad waste cleanup efforts after the cold war until he retired. He was the one to tell me that Plutonium fleas coming to us in the trans-oceanic winds from Fukushima steam and smoke represents a greater risk than any emissions the plutonium extraction plants produced.

Richland, Washington was the first city established to support plutonium production at the nearby Hanford nuclear site, to power the American nuclear weapons arsenals. Ozersk, Russia supported plutonium production to power the Soviet nuclear arsenals at the Mayak nuclear plant. These were the first two cities in the world to produce plutonium for use in cold war atomic bombs.

In the 2013 book on a history of these two blighted cities, Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters (Oxford), Kate Brown explores the health of affected citizens in both the United States and Russia, and the “slow-motion disasters” that still threaten the environments where the plants are located. According to Brown, the plants at Hanford and Mayak, over a period of four decades, “both released more than 200 million curies of radioactive isotopes into the surrounding environment -- twice the amount expelled in the Chernobyl disaster in each instance”.

Most of this radioactive contamination over the years at Hanford and Mayak were part of normal operations, but unforeseen accidents did occur and plant management kept this secret, as the pollution continued unabated. Even today, as pollution threats to health and the environment persist, the government keeps knowledge about the associated risks from the public

Plutonium ingested by or injected into humans is transported in the transferrin based iron(III) transport system and then is stored in the liver in the iron store (ferritin), after an exposure to plutonium it is important to rapidly inject the subject with a chelating agent such as calcium complex of DTPA. This antidote is useful for a single one off exposure such as that which would occur if a glove box worker was to cut their hand with a Pu contaminated object. The calcium complex has faster metal binding kinetics than the zinc complex but if the calcium complex is used for a long time it tends to remove important minerals from the person. The zinc complex is less able to cause these effects.

Plutonium that is inhaled by humans lodges in the lungs and is slowly translocated to the lymph nodes. Inhaled plutonium has been shown to lead to lung cancer in experimental animals

About 3.5 tons of plutonium have been released into the environment by atomic bomb tests. While this might sound like a large amount it has only resulted in a very small dose to the majority of the humans on the earth. Overall the health effects of fission products are far greater than the effects of the actinides released by a nuclear bomb detonation. The plutonium from the fuel of the bomb is converted into a high-fired oxide that is carried high into the air. It slowly falls to earth as global fallout and is not soluble, and as a result it is difficult for this plutonium to be incorporated into an organism if ingested. Much of this plutonium is absorbed into sediments of lakes, rivers and oceans. However, about 66% of the plutonium from a bomb explosion is formed by the neutron capture of uranium-238; this plutonium is not converted by the bomb into a high fired oxide as it is formed more slowly. This formed plutonium is more soluble and more harmful as fallout.

Plutonium can also be introduced into the environment via the reentry of artificial satellites containing atomic batteries. There have been several such incidents, the most prominent being the Apollo 13 mission. The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package carried on the Lunar Module re-entered the atmosphere over the South Pacific. Many atomic batteries have been of the Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) type. The Plutonium-238 used in RTGs has a half-life of 88 years, as opposed to the plutonium-239 used in nuclear weapons and reactors, which has a half-life of 24,100 years.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_in_the_environment

A medical look at plutonium.

Plutonium is toxic as a result of its radioactivity.

Plutonium is a heavy metal like cadmium and lead. Both are toxic. However, the toxicity of plutonium is worse than could be expected from its 'heavy metal character'. In fact, its toxicity comes from its radioactivity, which is even more malicious than that of most other radioactive materials. Uranium is mildly radioactive and can be held safely in the hand, though it is not wise to make a bed of it. Plutonium is much more radioactive, but surprisingly it can also be held safely, as long as one avoids direct contact with the skin and prevents it from entering the body. This is explained by the special quality of its radioactivity. The "radiation packets" that are produced by plutonium, the so-called 'alpha particles', emerge with great velocity from the plutonium nuclei, but they do not penetrate deeply: the impact craters are less than one tenth of a millimeter deep in the tissues. Here many cells will be killed or damaged. Some of these damaged cells become malignant and will start a cancer.

Plutonium dust originates from inadvertent criticality.

Plutonium dust can be formed in, for example, a so-called criticality accident. We have seen before that plutonium can be held safely in gloved hands. However, if a smuggler should be too successful he risks a disaster. If he should add a new container of plutonium on top of his pile, the total mass of plutonium may become supercritical. Right in front of him the smuggler may witness what is also happening deep in the core of a nuclear reactor: the very chain reaction of nuclear fissions itself. In the exploding nuclear bomb, a similar process takes place, but very fast, in a flash. In a supercritical pile this happens in ominous silence.

Most likely the unfortunate smuggler only sees a sudden blue light and he feels a hot glow passing. Near the center of his stack some smoke may emerge. The chain reaction stops spontaneously, because the supercritical mass has expanded by the heat and fallen apart. Perhaps some packages are still burning a little.

The smuggler however is beyond medical help. Within a few seconds he has received a dose of radiation that equals thousands of X-ray pictures right through his body. That same night he will fall ill. Within days he will die of radiation sickness.

Meanwhile the immediate environment is also in danger. The smoke contains a fine powder of plutonium oxide. The powder becomes lodged by inhalation in the lungs and many years later lung cancer may develop.
Criticality is a treacherous property of plutonium and may come to light when an amount of about 10 kilograms is available: this is the size of a large grapefruit if it is pure and closely packed. However, a pile of bags with plutonium would probably need to exceed 100 kilograms before it becomes supercritical. The average distance between the plutonium atoms is much larger in this case, making the chain reaction less probable. Adding water sharply increases the probability of a chain reaction. The fire brigade had better know that.
Plutonium dust may cause lung and bone cancer.

If somebody inhales plutonium dust, he won't notice anything special. Only 10 to 50 years later is it possible that lung and bone cancer may develop. Once in the lungs, the plutonium dust stays there for many years: sparks that fail to extinguish. Ten per cent of the original dose in the lungs can still be found there after fifteen years (as experiments with beagle dogs have shown). Very slowly the particles move to the lymph nodes of the lungs. When it appears in the blood plutonium "seeks" the bones and the liver. Even when the concentration of the plutonium dust in the air is very low, accumulation of this plutonium in the lung may become a serious burden. The animal experiments have allowed scientists to calculate what may happen in human lungs after inhalation of plutonium dust. They found that as little as a 27 millionth of one gram of plutonium dust (27 micrograms of 239Pu oxide) is enough to cause a lung cancer. That is why in the handbooks the maximum permissible concentration of plutonium is among the lowest of all radioactive substances.

Summary of medical aspects

* Plutonium is toxic as a result of its radioactivity: not outside the body, but very much so inside the body. The smoke of burning plutonium contains microscopic plutonium particles, that may settle in the lungs where the "fire" seems to continue. Therefore, they are called: "hot particles", causing microscopic burns in the living tissues. At the edge of them lung cancer may develop. It was calculated that an amount of 27 micrograms of plutonium-dust is sufficient to cause lung cancer (note: one microgram is one thousandth of a milligram). In experimental animals bone cancer has also been found.

* Congenital defects due to plutonium contamination have not been described as yet.

* Plutonium can go off when it is piled up, a 'criticality' disaster. The pile suddenly produces a flash of penetrating radiation causing acute radiation sickness in those who are in the vicinity of it. The smoke coming out of the burning pile may lodge tiny particles containing plutonium deep in the lungs. Fall-out from an explosion of an atomic bomb also contains plutonium dust, and so does the smoke of a nuclear disaster like 'Chernobyl' and 'Windscale'.

* Traces of plutonium have been found in the environment where children play, like the sea shores of Cumbria, in the Irish sea and near Cap la Hague on the Channel coast; this fact has caused an outcry by the local population. An increase in the occurrence of leukemia amongst children has indeed been found, but causality could not be proved.

* Private properties have gone down in value after being contaminated with plutonium dust. Doctors are unable to convince any buyer about the safety of low level radiation. Because of both the facts and the health fear, leaking plutonium may turn out to be an expensive matter.

* Plutonium has a very long half-life. Thus, its toxicity is a potential health hazard for thousands of years. That poses a moral problem; future people may find it but may have forgotten the danger.

* There are no medical applications for plutonium, like those of radium. Plutonium as a power-generator in pacemakers is now obsolete.

http://www.nvmp.org/pluto4.htm

Note that Fukushima has three meltdowns putting reactor products into the atmosphere. Exploding reactor three was fueled with MOX, containing plutonium. The unstable building four fuel pool contains a fresh reactor load of MOX. There are many hundreds of tons of radioactive fuel including plutonium at Fukushima, continually releasing to the atmosphere through steam, smoke, and explosions. Site workers are operating at high risk and can not even approach the three buildings with reactor meltdowns. The site may have to be evacuated completely, at which point the fuel pools go dry and catch fire and the tank farm deteriorates and the sump pumps stop and the whole place goes unstable and unconstrained, affecting the entire northern hemisphere.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jan 8, 2014 - 12:45am PT
I wonder how many people now about the nuclear meltdown that occurred at Rocketdyne in the 50s;

http://environews.tv/remembering-rocketdyne-discussing-americas-worst-nuclear-meltdown-not-three-mile-island-with-erin-brockovich/

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 8, 2014 - 01:26am PT
here is the link to the IAEA page

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/japan-basic-policy-full.html

and the METI cite:
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/#progress_status
Anastasia

climber
Home
Jan 8, 2014 - 01:29am PT
Ed!!!

You should tell them that anyone living on our California coast will get Radiated and... They will develop super hero powers. Yes, they will climb better, stronger, faster.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jan 8, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
We are being heavily impacted by these

Tom, do you have data for this statement?

as an aside, open atmosphere weapons testing has resulted in much higher residual concentrations of radioactivity in teh stratosphere than previoulsy thought.

http://nuclear-news.net/2014/01/07/n-test-legacy-in-stratosphere-bigger-than-thought/



//Levels of radioactive plutonium in Earth’s stratosphere from nuclear tests and accidents is higher than previously thought, but probably not dangerous to humans, scientists in Switzerland said Tuesday.

It was previously thought that plutonium radionuclides — radioactive atoms which can take decades or thousands of years to degrade — were present in the stratosphere only at negligible levels.

It was also believed that levels of these pollutants were higher in the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is closest to the ground, than in the stratosphere.

Both ideas turn out to be wrong, according to the new study, whose authors also found no likelihood of a hazard to health.



Radiation levels in the stratosphere are “more than three orders of magnitude higher than previously thought,” study co-author Jose Corcho of the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection told AFP.

The team also found that volcanic eruptions may shift those pollutants from the stratosphere into the troposphere, closer to Earth.

But Corcho said there was no evidence of danger.

“The levels of plutonium and (caesium) currently found in the stratosphere are low, and comparable to the levels measured at ground level air (troposphere) at the end of the sixties and in the seventies,” he explained by email.

“Although I’m not a health specialist, I would say that the current levels of plutonium found in the stratosphere do not represent a risk for the population.”//
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Jan 8, 2014 - 12:46pm PT
http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=16363
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Jan 8, 2014 - 01:08pm PT
I am struggling to understand the risk levels. Government and industry are little help and are withholding critical information from the public. This attitude on their part worries me as much as anything else.

The owner of a neighboring boat is a nuclear engineer who used to work at Hanford. He tells me horror stories of massive releases down the Colombia River when the pressurized water reactors burned through between inside and outside cooling loops. He tries to reassure me about the low levels of danger.

On the other hand he has had surgeries for neck cancer and skin cancer and is selling his boat because he can't handle it any more. His super powers seem to be on the wane.
Messages 121 - 140 of total 156 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta