[Closed] A morbid interest in the meltdown

I read an interesting article today that talked about how Japan has changed over the last 60 years and in the last 15 years particularly.

15 years ago they had the Kobe earthquake and many nations said they would help but the ruling Liberal Democrat Party declined and even when other countries sent in their rescue squads the Japanese authorities put the search dogs in quarantine and people died as a result.

The current Liberal party that is now in charge is actively seeking help because there is a lack of leadership within Japan. They have had 4 prime ministers in the last 4 years which shows that something is not quite right.

I have read some quite scary stories about Tokyo Electric and their lack of respect for their country's regulators when it comes to safety in their nuclear plants as well.

Let's see what happens in the short term and hope that it is good news.

Even given the headless chicken performance by some of the media, it amazes me that people use the casualty numbers from the tsunami to downplay the nuclear situation.

Even given the headless chicken performance by some of the media, it amazes me that people use the casualty numbers from the tsunami to downplay the nuclear situation.

gamma radiation is too high to fly low enough without killing the pilots

They'll have to be in orbit around another planet: Gamma rays are very energetic.

Explain how this isn't just a part of the tsunami?

You have a broader definition of tsunami than me.

You have a broader definition of tsunami than me.

So you think refineries catching fire and power stations blowing up were just coincidence?

Nope... not the slightest. But I'm bored of the reverse-moralising from people who are posting very far from the exclusion zone.

Even given the headless chicken performance by some of the media, it amazes me that people use the casualty numbers from the tsunami to downplay the nuclear situation.

Why? 15,000 plus dead and the world's obsessed with an incident that has killed but a couple of people so far. I accept that rates of cancer *may* increase, but that's quite a big *may* based on scientific studies of previous incidents. It CANNOT become anything like chernobyl, which in itself seems to have had far less of an effect than you'd imagine, if you go off peer-reviewd research, as opposed to anti-pnuclear hearsay.

It is indeed very serious locally, but it's not a reasonable reason not to build more of them. Unless you're suggesting that the risks the world faces from climate change are lower than nuclear too?

Nope... not the slightest. But I'm bored of the reverse-moralising from people who are posting very far from the exclusion zone.

As opposed to getting fixated

Oh, it's one thing in manifold horrors, granted - not least the plight of the elderly & infirm, who are now dying for want of basic meds, food and warmth.

But risk can never be entirely separated from the perception of risk, and there's a [i]big[/i] difference between arguing (in comfort) about the merits of nukes - and re-assuring an exhausted & frightened populace.

you call it, quote : "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"

Journalism is about stories not numbers of casualties. And currency (time) is key. The earthquake and tsunami are disasters that have already happened.

But the irradiation of Japan is a disaster waiting to happen and, unlike the others, partially a folly of our own design. It's extra poignant because of what happened to Japan in WWII. Historically, it could also mark the beginning-of-the-end of mankind's use of Uranium-fission nuclear power technology.

I read an article suggesting the story resonates with the Garden of Eden mythos deep in our cultural psyche: the consequences of learning forbidden knowledge and wielding divine forces beyond our complete control. Sounds a bit hifalutin, but I thought it was interesting.

hifalutin

New word for me.

Engineers at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant have successfully connected a power line to reactor 2, the UN's nuclear watchdog reports.

Restoring power should enable engineers to restart the pumps which send coolant over the reactor.

Well that's good news. Restoring the cooling system should mean that the risks of further escalation of this situation is lessened. Oh and TJ, that's not the best cast scenario, that's actually close to the worst cast scenario (although the plant [i]is[/i] now effectively scrap). All you are doing is displaying your own anti nuclear prejudice. So far as I'm aware, this incident ranks as one of the worst nuclear disasters in history and so far it has claimed exactly no lives whatsoever and the incidents that have caused the biggest injuries were hydrogen explosions. Aren't you a proponent of hydrogen as a means of power storage? It doesn't look to safe does it?

it's a reactor out of control. We are not describing it the same at all

Oh and the reactors are [i]not[/i] out of control, they have all been successfully shut down. The current issue is in dealing with the residual heat and short lived radioactive isotopes. It's not like there is is some "out of control nuclear reactions" going on.

Why? 15,000 plus dead and the world's obsessed with an incident that has killed but a couple of people

Oh and the reactors are not out of control, they have all been successfully shut down

It's not like there is is some "out of control nuclear reactions" going on.

the incidents that have caused the biggest injuries were hydrogen explosions.

i think it is because one an act of god /nature the othe is th eefect of ths act on a man made structure we choose to build that may or may not be safe.

What happens if you wear radioactive underpants?

Chernobyl fallout

you call it, quote : "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"

[b]Context my dear boy, context. Though I understand that's something you're not particularly keen on.[/b]

I am very keen on "context". You said, quote : [i]"the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"[/i] in the context of a situation where a nuclear reactor is out of control.

IMO a nuclear reactor out of control is not the same as the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor.

I describe it as you would a serious problem, you describe it as you would a minor problem. We do not describe the situation "pretty much exactly" the same - which is what you claimed.

Of course if you now regret trivialising the situation by describing it simply as "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor" then fair enough. But until you've told me otherwise, I'll take that is your view on the matter.

I didn't say it was under control, I said there wasn't an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

You know it really is this sort of binary thinking that pisses me off (this isn't just a dig at you Junkyard). Thing are not either safe or dangerous. Not everyone is either a rabidly pro or anti nuclear. Some of us actually have some understanding of the subtlety of risk and know that it is a sliding scale between two extremes despite what the media might be saying. I know that things aren't perfect and you know what I'd much rather that there wasn't a nuclear incident happening in Japan right now, but there is and the people there are doing pretty much everything they can to stop it getting worse, and despite with the media keep saying, they seem to be doing a pretty damn good job of it in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It's been a week now and as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a massive release of radiation and the general public have not been put at risk.

that is rather economical with the truth. What caused the hydrogen build up was it the heat in the big nuclear reactor ? or do we get random exploding hydrogen pockets now?

Given the context of people not wishing to blame the earthquake for this, I think it is in keeping with the general tone. In any case, yes the hydrogen was generated by the reactor, however it was contained within a building to try and prevent the release of some radiation. Had it simply been vented then the explosion wouldn't have occurred. This does however rather miss the point that I was trying to make which is that the very people on this thread who support the use of hydrogen as a method of storing energy are the very ones criticising nuclear as being unsafe, which seems odd given that hydrogen explosions have caused more injuries in this situation than the radiation!

Yes other things have killed more people than nuclear but that does not make nuclear safe per se. I may as well argue that a car is more dangerous than nuclear bombs as they have killed more people.
The only issue is whether this risk is ok. As a burning nuclear power station wont convince you it it is clear to me that nothing will.

as far as I'm aware

Do you have any access to other information outside of the usual news realms that we do?
IF you watch CHannel 4 news and see the timeline of admission of faults, there was something happening everyday that was being admitted to by the Japanese Nuclear lot escalating the panic everytime/

Oh and the reactors are not out of control

They are overheating and they cannot, at the moment, cool them down sufficiently. Instead of the reactors getting cooler, which is what they want them to do, the reactors are getting hotter. They are not in control of the situation. The reactors are "out of control".

I didn't say it was under control,

Oh and the reactors are not out of control,

You know it really is this sort of binary thinking that pisses me off (this isn't just a dig at you Junkyard). (

the general public have not been put at risk.

They are not in control of the situation. The reactors are "out of control".

Not being fully in control of a situation is not necessarily the same as thing being "out of control". Out of control in this context implies an out of control nuclear reaction which isn't happening. There is that binary thinking again.

is there any chance it could melt through the floor, and come out the other side .or is that just not possible.

gonefishin: binary thinking - a very well observed post. I agree with you 100%

Someone working there had the idea of using the fire suppression system to irrigate the hot reactors with seawater - not in the manual that. That worker deserves much of the credit for recovering the situation. Well done that Jap!

so I can both be not in control of my bike but not actually out of control either. i call this a contradiction in my binary syatem of true or false] what is this third way you speak off 😆

What have I denied saying? Perhaps I should probably have said "not fully under control" but then I thought that was clear enough for anyone not hard of thinking, see I can do digs too.

what is this third way you speak off

It's the realisation that the world is not black and white. To use your biking analogy, if you slide the back end of you bike round a corner {whisper]skid[/whisper] you are not fully in control of your bike. Bouncing down the hill end over end would be fully out of control, however there is a difference between the two.

i know you can as you started it with your not just aimed at you Junkyard comment.
You can also do them to lots of folk at once. However I can just do them to you as I am limited by my binary system of thinking 😳
[flounce] Suggesting I am a dullard is one thing saying I cannot control a skid is way out of order ...them's fighting words[/flounce]
😆

Not being fully in control of a situation is not necessarily the same as thing being "out of control". Out of control in this context implies an out of control nuclear reaction which isn't happening.

So if my car is skidding as long as I switch off the engine it won't be out of control ?

Out of control in this context implies that the situation in Fukushima is not under control.

Scraprider: it's called China Syndrome. It's a theoretical worst case. The primary reaction ~500 MegaWatts is suppressed because the damping rods were dropped when the quake happened. The fuel still generates heat from intermediate product "decay" ~12 MegaWatts. This must be actively cooled and takes more than a year to reduce sufficiently to remove the fuel rods. If this cooling fails as in this case, the heat builds up in the primary containment. Above 2000 degrees, the fuel rods melt. About 3000 degrees the fuel itself melts. It pours and collect at the bottom of the containment in a critical mass. Free of the damping rods, the primary reaction kicks off again, probably exceeding 2-3 GigaWatts. Pressure explodes the primary containment exposing fuel to atmosphere. Fires break out spreading the fuel particles around the world. It melts through the floor of the primary containment, into the Earth, passing though and polluting the water table. Continuing until either the fuel is spent or it hits mantle and a possible radioactive volcano spews.

It aint pretty.

I am very keen on "context". You said, quote : "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor" in the context of a situation where a nuclear reactor is out of control

it's called China Syndrome. It's theoretical worst case

Not a very good film either!

I read that these reactors have a catch and disperse tray to prevent China Syndrome. Who knows if that works, how do you test it!?

Chernobyl had diddly squat containment and a pretty unsafe reactor control system. After it went super-crit and blew of the reactor cover, it melted and started its way down. They were worried enough to drill under the molten core and freeze the ground with liquid nitrogen.

I read that these reactors have a catch and disperse tray to prevent China Syndrome. Who knows if that works, how do you test it!?

It's not complicated though is it. Spreading molten stuff out isn't the most complicated problem they needed to overcome.

The only issue is whether this risk is ok.

This is a stupid argument.

We have to define the level of risk we're happy with for continued supply of energy. If the consensus is to stop driving and turn the lights off, then great, by all means scrap nuclear power. [u]BUT[/u] if the global consensus isn't to do that (and I suspect that this might just be the case), then we as a species whill have to continue taking some risks to generate that power. May I ask how you propose to do this without:

a) Potential for a few thousand deaths related to a nuclear incident?
b) Potential for millions of deaths and untold damage to countless fragile ecosystems due to continued burning of fossil fuels?

Context - something that as usual, you appear to be struggling with...

being pedantic

Me being pedantic ? 😀 It's the nuclear cheerleaders who are excelling at that. Some geezer on the previous page wants to argue the toss about the exact meaning of the term 'out of control' citing some bollox about control skids on mountain bikes or something.

BTW : [i]"either you're a lot thicker than I thought"[/i] well tell me, how thick did you think I was ? ....that might be a clue. But anyway, if you think I'm thick, why do you put so much effort arguing against me ? .......basing that on the assumption that you are very clever indeed.

cheers buzz now i understand.

"Spreading molten stuff out isn't the most complicated problem they needed to overcome."

Possibly. But containing a quarter-tonne super-critical mass of liquified metal at around 3000+ degrees, belching out 2-3 gigaWatts might tax a lump of concrete.

I think TMI was a partial melt that pooled in the bottom of the containment - not a critical mass. These might be similar. Here we go...
[img] [/img]

ernie - you don't have to be thick to be a lot thicker than I thought - quite the opposite in fact (though I don't know why I bother).

Well the reactors are still not under control, still leaking radiation, containment is admitted to have breached. There is now radioactivity in the local water supply as well as the sea and air

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12825342

Sensible article by the BBC:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274[/url]

I had an x-ray on friday and a CT scan yesterday - sweet 🙂

So rio the fact we still don't know the extent of the radioactive release nor how much longer it is going to go on releasing radioactivity and that the situation is far from under control is OK then?
🙄

Well the reactors are still not under control, still leaking radiation, containment is admitted to have breached. There is now radioactivity in the local water supply as well as the sea and air

Good to see you've done some research before jumping on the paranoia bandwagon. As it says...

[b]"there is no suggestion that these levels of radiation pose any immediate threat to human health."[/b]

So rio the fact we still don't know the extent of the radioactive release nor how much longer it is going to go on releasing radioactivity and that the situation is far from under control is OK then?

From the governments chief advisor [url= http://ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566811882 ]here[/url]

[b]So the other point here is that in fact you know I want to sort of give some reassurance that you know even if you had a completely paranoid view that somehow the radiation was being concealed, you can’t do it, it’s monitored throughout the world. We know we can actually monitor exactly what the radiation levels are around there externally so it’s just not happening.[/b]

As for the 'China Syndrome' that is what happened at Three Mile Island although the molton core didn't quite melt through to the centre of the earth, it managed a mere 16mm into the 5" thick concrete before solidifying!