Huge 8.9 quake plus tsunami - Japan

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1441 - 1460 of total 1947 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:03am PT
Sometimes fear is logical.
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:10am PT
Good point John. But I would much rather have my fear based upon reality than the boogey man
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:13am PT
the trouble with this sort of security is that it requires continual very high attention

don't blink!

eventually the empire falls asleep

John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:24am PT
Golson, As Karl has pointed out. The nuclear industry keeps saying..everything is in control.. Not using those words, but trying for that effect. Yet the facts that keep coming out of this are worse then they say.

We planned for a large earthquake.. Oops.. not that large.
Who could have forsaw such a large Tsunami?.. oh.. I don't know. maybe the people who put the rocks in place.

These are the kinds of things we keep hearing.

You keep saying. Well.. other things like driving and chemical plants are also dangerous. And I keep saying, but not in the same way, with potentially very long term consequences.

I am very glad that the nuclear industry is taking some of these things seriously. But I'm tired of being treated like .. You just can't handle the truth..

Plus.. and this is the biggie.. the nuclear industry doesn't get an.. oops... Not one. Or don't you understand that?

The letter Karl received from the Senator was basically saying. Well, we do things better then the Japanese.. Really??????

I hope that you can understand that it is difficult to trust an industry that keeps saying.. everything is okay.. when they also say.. well we don't really know what would happen in a complete meltdown. Maybe there would be an explosion. maybe there wouldn't.

...

Anyway.. I didn't mean to rant so long. I do appreciate your and Adams commentary on this forum. This is a difficult subject and I hope you will forgive me for not exactly trusting everything that comes out of it.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:25am PT
while the 137Cs physical half life is roughly 34 years, it's biological half-life, the time it hangs around in the body before being leaving is 70 days in humans. That means that you do not accumulate 137Cs which is a good thing.

reactor accidents are waiting games because the prompt radiations have to die off before people, or even machines, can get close to the location of the accident. During the wait the reactors have to be managed in such a way that they do not overheat and in so doing cause more problems.

the damage to the power plants and the limitations of working in them have necessarily slowed down the progress in re-establishing the "normal" cooling loops, which may also be damaged and not functional. it is a disaster to run the water through the plants and dump it into the sea, but the alternative choice is to not cool the cores, which is no choice at all.

so while we wait the radioactive elements are released into the environment, and that is not a good thing, certainly. we can only hope that the reactors can be managed in this "safe" mode until it is possible to effect the necessary repairs first to stop the discharges but secondly to secure the reactors in some form of entombment that will not lead to future radioactive leaks.

John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:31am PT
we can only hope that the reactors can be managed in this "safe" mode until it is possible to effect the necessary repairs first to stop the discharges but secondly to secure the reactors in some form of entombment that will not lead to future radioactive leaks.

It is difficult to maintain hope when the system is so fragile.. including the human ego that was running this show. Tepco kept saying that everything was being done that could be done. Yet when the powerlines were being readied, the road to the place hadn't been cleared so the power company could easily string the line. That delayed things by over a day. These kinds of things make it hard to trust that they even know what "everything" is.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:42am PT
Just to come up with a quick answer about where I got it, I googled 20,000 years exclusion zone and got this from here

http://schuylerthorpe.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/25-years-later-the-ghost-of-chernobyl-persists/


"....Officials say Ukraine is likely to spend billions of euros on confinement upkeep costs before it finds a way to bury the reactor components, perhaps under layers of underground granite rocks. Even then the area around the plant will remain unsuitable for thousands of years. Asked how long before people can settle down and grow crops at the site, Chernobyl power plant director Ihor Gramotkin said: “At least 20,000 years......”

I could be wrong about security at plants. I had heard about the lax security when ABC news sent "student" to check out reactors on 25 campuses and this prompted a federal investigation.

element of that report are available from

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/LooseNukes/

including this from here

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LooseNukes/story?id=1206529&page=1

A four-month ABC News investigation found gaping security holes at many of the little-known nuclear research reactors operating on 25 college campuses across the country. Among the findings: unmanned guard booths, a guard who appeared to be asleep, unlocked building doors and, in a number of cases, guided tours that provided easy access to control rooms and reactor pools that hold radioactive fuel.

ABC News found none of the college reactors had metal detectors, and only two appear to have armed guards. Many of the schools permit vehicles in close proximity to the reactor buildings without inspection for explosives.

A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation's campus research reactors, said that, based on the ABC News findings, the agency has opened an investigation into at least five of the schools.

"The NRC will not hesitate to take strong enforcement action should we find a violation," said Eliot B. Brenner, director of the NRC's Office of Public Affairs. The NRC is also reviewing the adequacy of reactor security plans at other schools as a result of the ABC News investigation, Brenner said.

But critics in Congress say that the ABC News findings reveal another area where the NRC has been slow to respond to potential terrorist threats.

"The security problems exposed here offer yet more evidence that, four years after 9/11, the NRC has not done nearly enough to secure our nation's nuclear facilities," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the NRC."

This was in 2005. Well after 9-11

Now these reactors may be like easy - bake ovens compared to a big nuke plant but terrorists could still do some serious baking with them.

Just sayin

Peace

Karl



Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:50am PT
Be sure and check out my last post on the previous page

Ed writes

...
reactor accidents are waiting games because the prompt radiations have to die off before people, or even machines, can get close to the location of the accident. During the wait the reactors have to be managed in such a way that they do not overheat and in so doing cause more problems.

the damage to the power plants and the limitations of working in them have necessarily slowed down the progress in re-establishing the "normal" cooling loops, which may also be damaged and not functional. it is a disaster to run the water through the plants and dump it into the sea, but the alternative choice is to not cool the cores, which is no choice at all.

so while we wait the radioactive elements are released into the environment, and that is not a good thing, certainly. we can only hope that the reactors can be managed in this "safe" mode until it is possible to effect the necessary repairs first to stop the discharges but secondly to secure the reactors in some form of entombment that will not lead to future radioactive leaks"

I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. Where we might disagree is that I find this checkmated sort of situation, with so much at stake, (and they could still lose the battle) to be unacceptable in consequences and risk. We're stuck with it now in Japan, but we just can't set ourselves up for accidents where we can't get close enough to prevent vast disaster. That's one of the problems with Nuke accidents.

Peace

karl
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:54am PT
John, the outcome doesn't depend on your hope or despair...

Karl, there has been an extensive program to secure all of those reactors, and other radioactive material since 9/11, a major program of multiple departments of the USG (Energy, Defense, Homeland Security). In addition, developing replacements for commercially used radioactive materials is an active area of R&D also funded by Energy and Homeland Security.

The situation is much better now than at the time of your report.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 14, 2011 - 01:58am PT
20,000 years would be the half-lives of various core materials spewed out at Chernobyl. It is what is being avoided in Japan, so far. It's 100's of years if only 137Cs...

jstan

climber
Apr 14, 2011 - 02:06am PT
I think the question as to the length of time before people can live near an accident site has to be approached on practical terms. If you lived in economically stressed times and cannot feed your children, even though living next to excellent unused farm land, what would you do? Dying at 35 is tomorrow. Your kids are hungry today.

In practical terms, nuclear accidents offer the prospect of shorter life span.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Apr 14, 2011 - 02:06am PT
Tom writes

the trouble with this sort of security is that it requires continual very high attention

don't blink!

eventually the empire falls asleep

Yeah, I was thinking that too. The bad new is that if they have to maintain enough security 24/7/365 to ward off a concerted terrorist attack at each nuke plant, that's just another risk/expense that speaks against the technology and it's cost effectiveness.

The empire is at risk of degradation. Look at our recent economic woes and now we're going to be facing peak oil. After the soviet union collapsed, the vigilance over their nukes got pretty slack. That's one sucking thing about nukes, they require money and vigilance over longer periods than humans have a right to vouchsafe.

Some interesting stuff from here

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/LooseNukes/story?id=1208241

.....A report released this year by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government says that there is enough material in the former Soviet Union to build 80,000 nuclear weapons -- and only half of it is secured.

"There's certainly a huge amount of material," Brooks said. "The Cold War produced in both sides exceptionally large quantities of material."

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union sent nuclear material to 17 Soviet republics and allies, including a reactor in Latvia.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was neither the money nor the political will to support these reactors. Today, the Latvia reactor's control room is covered with dust -- it was shut down seven years ago. But the nuclear fuel remained, protected by only a rickety gate, a few guards and some dogs.

Other sites in Russia were protected by simple locks or just wax and some string -- the same technology used to seal official letters hundreds of years ago. The Energy Department says the United States has upgraded security in about half of the sites in the former Soviet Union. But the only failsafe protection is to remove the material and take it to a secure location.....

....Ultimately, only about 6.5 pounds -- a fraction of what is needed to build a nuclear bomb -- was removed from Latvia. At a cost of $340,000 for the operation, that's about $51,500 a pound. In the next five years, the United States expects to spend more than $500 million to reduce the nuclear threat worldwide, including in the former Soviet Union.....

But critics say we don't have time and point to 18 confirmed incidents of nuclear smuggling in the last decade.

....Nuclear physicist Peter Zimmerman said not enough is being done to protect America. "All of our recovery efforts are fragmented," he said. "They're under-funded. The United States can afford to spend the money to recover this material ... a lot more than it can afford to replace a city......."

Peace

karl
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Apr 14, 2011 - 02:20am PT
Ed writes

20,000 years would be the half-lives of various core materials spewed out at Chernobyl. It is what is being avoided in Japan, so far. It's 100's of years if only 137Cs...


Since 100s of years is the whole history of the United States, I find that to be a long time. We'll see about the "so far" and hope for the best. I don't think we know the extent of the contamination yet. We know there's more than 137c, for example

from March 29th

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42301452/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

TOKYO — Highly toxic plutonium is seeping from the damaged nuclear power plant in Japan's tsunami disaster zone into the soil outside, officials said Tuesday, further complicating the delicate operation to stabilize the overheated facility.

"The situation is very grave," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters Tuesday. "We are doing our utmost efforts to contain the damage."

Experts had expected traces would be detected once crews began searching for it, because plutonium is present in the production of nuclear energy.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the amounts found at five sites during testing last week were very small and were not a risk to public health.

TEPCO official Jun Tsuruoka said only two of the plutonium samples were believed to be from a leaking reactor. The other three samples were from earlier nuclear tests, he said. Years of weapons testing in the atmosphere have left trace amounts of plutonium in many places around the world.

But finding plutonium is a concern because it is the most toxic of isotopes that can be released from a nuclear reactor. It can be fatal to humans in very tiny doses and does not decay quickly.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Apr 14, 2011 - 02:23am PT
John, the outcome doesn't depend on your hope or despair...

Never said or implied that it did. I was responding to Golsons continued complaint about all the fear. Its difficult to have hope that the nuclear industry can do a good job as a whole with such a dangerous material.

His fear seems to be that we wont allow nuclear energy to continue.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Apr 14, 2011 - 03:01am PT
Another interesting article today in the New York Times written by a Japanese about how the ongoing disaster has affected the psychology of the general public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/opinion/14iht-edmakihara14.html?ref=global

There's another article about how many Japanese who weren't even near the disasters are now experiencing Traumatic Stress symptoms, feeling earthquakes that aren't there.

I'm sure this is only the beginning.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Apr 14, 2011 - 03:10am PT
As for nuclear safety, I certainly hope it has improved. I had an Army Special Forces officer living next door to me in government quarters here in Okinawa back in the late 1980's, who told me how much fun they had invading nuclear facilities around the Pacific Northwest to test their security.

He mentioned that they were able to penetrate the highest security one (sorry I didn't ask for the name) by digging under the fence and that when they entered the control room, the operators on duty were sound asleep. They left notes on their consoles letting them know they had been there and then snuck back out of the place without ever being detected.

This was all part of a conversation about some of the more fun things he had done as part of his job. Another time they were called on to guard a bunch of "nutty professors" who were doing a research project in Panama. He was still amazed at how smart and lacking in common sense they were. Of course being a professor, I had plenty of my own stories to add on that score!
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Apr 14, 2011 - 03:23am PT
Jan wrote

He mentioned that they were able to penetrate the highest security one (sorry I didn't ask for the name) by digging under the fence and that when they entered the control room, the operators on duty were sound asleep. They left notes on their consoles letting them know they had been there and then snuck back out of the place without ever being detected.

Truth is stranger than fiction!



;-)

Karl
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Apr 14, 2011 - 03:45am PT
Years of weapons testing in the atmosphere have left trace amounts of plutonium in many places around the world.

But finding plutonium is a concern because it is the most toxic of isotopes that can be released from a nuclear reactor. It can be fatal to humans in very tiny doses and does not decay quickly.


Jun Tsuruoka is right about our weapons testing heritage, Karl…but in context of reactor leakage, he neglected to interject that nuclear bombs were intended to spread radioactive materials over a wide area…nuclear reactors are designed to contain radioactivity.

The blast and rising heat storm from a BOMB forces heavy radionuclides like plutonium into the upper atmosphere … which ultimately settle throughout the planet. When containment fails at a nuclear reactor, heavier elements such as uranium and plutonium settle out very quickly and do not reach the upper atmosphere or get blown far by typical winds.

Elemental plutonium and uranium are not water soluble but their oxides are. Plutonium can bind with some organic substances in water… the natural process for the removal of plutonium from water is adsorption onto sediments.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Apr 14, 2011 - 04:21am PT
Could you clarify what you are saying Jennie?

Since they found plutonium outside the plant, it obviously isn't completely contained. One of those reactors uses MOX fuel.

How far could plutonium get from the plant if that MOX reactor melted down? What would be the consequences for how far?

Thanks

Peace

karl
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Apr 14, 2011 - 05:22am PT
Just the point that uranium, plutonium and other transuranic remnants of weapons testing were transported into the upper atmosphere by the explosion and firestorm of nuclear bombs... and ultimately deposited worldwide, Karl.

Some may read the Tsuruoka quote and conclude that these heavy radio nuclides are as transmigrant from a relatively quiescent reactor accident as from the extreme blast, heat and fury a nuclear bomb detonation.

The hazards (in the Fukushima breach of containment) from uranium, plutonium and other heavy isotopes will be more localized. The lighter airborne radio nuclides, if they’ve been transported in prodigious enough quantities, will be a greater peril to the wider population.
Messages 1441 - 1460 of total 1947 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