Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[Trippy]

Ugh.
I'm marginally anti nuclear (I see it as a temporary neccessary evil), and live in a country known globally for its anti nuclear stance.

And even I'm sick of the panic mongering.
Here's some real info:
Information on the Japanese Earthquake and Reactors in That Region

 

[adoucette]

The biggest factor here is lack of certainty. No one -- not even the experts -- actually knows with any real *certainty* what will happen, and this is because no one has tested the robustness of reactor designs with actual catastrophes or near catastrophes. It's not like ramming walls with cars containing crash dummies, accelerometers, airbags, etc. It's simply not economically or ecologically feasible. I've never heard of anyone smoke-testing a nuke plant.

Not exactly true.
We can predict temps and pressures in a melt down situation, so we can design the containment dome to, well contain it, as it did in 3 Mile Island.
Venting they are doing now has to do with protecting the reactor vessel itself and what they are trying to do was save the Reactor because if they can do that then eventually the fuel rods can be removed and the long term issues become much easier and cheaper to manage. But if they fail that and the vessel is destroyed there is still the containment dome that was designed to handle the heat and prevent radiation from escaping.

It goes without saying that they are very strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

Arthur

 

[Saquist]

Well, IIRC, when a sub's reactor is scrammed, they totally shut down the reaction, but it is still a "hot" reactor. However, nuclear subs have much smaller reactor cores (which is why they run a more enriched isotope as well - just look at the Alfa class SSN, which I believe is capable of suffering, as they say, a "sudden rapid explosive dis-assembly" of the core in the event of total containment failure) which, given lower mass and a higher overall volume to mass ratio, would result in much faster "deadening" of the reactor core.

But that's just going on what I can remember... and I'm no nuclear engineer :shrug:

That means the core could be as much as 10x as large than a sub reactor vessel. that's very useful Kitt.

 

[Cifo]

How about destructively testing nuclear rocket engine be intentionally making it meltdown? Is that not enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Destruction_of_KIWI_Nuclear_Reactor_-_GPN-2002-000145.jpg

Okay, now I've heard of the catastrophic testing of one nuclear rocket engine of 15% the power of the Fukushima reactor. It was not the same design/materials/etc, nor did they "break it" the same way.

We can predict temps and pressures in a melt down situation

With emphasis on "predict".

Look, I'm not anti-nuke, and in fact, I wish we had more nuclear power plants. I have visited on board a nuke sub.

I'm just saying no one really knows for sure. So when people say that a crippled nuclear power plant *can* do this or *can't* do that, they don't know with a reasonable certainty because no one has done such testing outside of computer simulations. My guess is that the current situation is not "in the play books" and that they have also trained less frequently on such extreme conditions as compared with "typical" anomalous conditions. What will happen will happen, and to me, it's just a matter of wait and see.

 

[ULTRA]

Not exactly true.
We can predict temps and pressures in a melt down situation, so we can design the containment dome to, well contain it, as it did in 3 Mile Island.
Venting they are doing now has to do with protecting the reactor vessel itself and what they are trying to do was save the Reactor because if they can do that then eventually the fuel rods can be removed and the long term issues become much easier and cheaper to manage. But if they fail that and the vessel is destroyed there is still the containment dome that was designed to handle the heat and prevent radiation from escaping.

It goes without saying that they are very strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

Arthur

The plan was always that if the worst happened, you could bury the whole containment cell, core and all, under tons of barium enriched concrete. Then deal with it at a later date, if ever.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Okay, now I've heard of the catastrophic testing of one nuclear rocket engine of 15% the power of the Fukushima reactor. It was not the same design/materials/etc, nor did they "break it" the same way.

Its certainly something similar, tell me I can't crash test a car in all possible scenarios can I? so how can a I be certain it safe? :shrug: You can't ask for a impossible level of safety from nuclear power simply out of "uncertainty". Tell me should we blow up dams just to see how many people they will kill and how many towns they will sweep away?

My guess is that the current situation is not "in the play books" and that they have also trained less frequently on such extreme conditions as compared with "typical" anomalous conditions. What will happen will happen, and to me, it's just a matter of wait and see.

I don't know what the play books are, but the current situation is certianly not outside the realm of predictable or even exceptional. These reactors were 4 years old, reliant on active safety mechanism and have containment domes for problems like these.

 

[adoucette]

My guess is that the current situation is not "in the play books" and that they have also trained less frequently on such extreme conditions as compared with "typical" anomalous conditions. What will happen will happen, and to me, it's just a matter of wait and see.

Once the fuel starts to melt it isn't a question of training anymore because you can no longer control what is going on in the reactor, then it's simply a question of the ability of the containment domes to physically contain the resultant meltdown that you get when you have a loss of coolant accident.
But that is exactly what it was designed for, so Yes, containment of radiation due to a core meltdown is supposedly "in the play book" for these second generation Nuclear plants.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

You can't ask for a impossible level of safety from nuclear power simply out of "uncertainty".

You can ask for a level commensurate with the potential harm.

If that is impossible, you can prudently not build the damn things.

 

[Cifo]

Its certainly something similar, tell me I can't crash test a car in all possible scenarios can I? so how can a I be certain it safe? :shrug: You can't ask for a impossible level of safety from nuclear power simply out of "uncertainty". Tell me should we blow up dams just to see how many people they will kill and how many towns they will sweep away?

1. That's just it ... when dealing with such catastrophes, we can't run lots of different scenarios (because we wouldn't have much of a planet left). The serious consequences dictate testing more scenarios than trivial consequences; yet, the serious consequences limits the amount of testing precisely because of the serious consequences.
2. So far, they've uncovered a couple of design flaws.
3. We don't blow up dams to see how many people they will kill for the same reason that we don't let nuclear power plants melt down to see how many people they will kill. (See answer #1.)

I don't know what the play books are, but the current situation is certainly not outside the realm of predictable or even exceptional. These reactors were 4 years old, reliant on active safety mechanism and have containment domes for problems like these.

exceptional
adj.
Constituting, or occurring as, an exception; not ordinary or average.

1. So, "not exceptional" means ordinary or average.
2. Apparently thinking that this is much worse than an ordinary or average situation, Japanese officials have evacuated more than 200,000 people from the area around the Fukushima reactors due to the possibility of core damage.
3. Do I think that the media is over-hyping the actual situation? Yes.

 

[ULTRA]

The media can't win.
Too much hype = alarmist
Not enough hype = negligent

 

[ElectricFetus]

You can ask for a level commensurate with the potential harm.

and that exactly what has been done. So no reason to not ask for them to be built.

Cifo,

Nothing wrong with evacuating those people, that not exception when a nuclear reactor has been damaged, not any more exception then evacuating people when a dam is damaged.

Now here the part I argue, nuclear power is not as unsafe as hydroelectric power or Coal power, even when taking into account actual nuclear disasters like Chernobyl which was a bad as its gets spewing radioactive material over thousands of miles over the wind. The actual death toll is lower then coal power cause lung disease or hydroelectric dams blowing and washing whole towns away, its an acceptable risk and hysterical exaggerated illogical fear of radiation is the real problem.

 

[ULTRA]

Flash Report@wireservices
Reuters FLASH: TEPCO has reported a rise in radiation levels at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to the Japanese government
4 minutes ago via web

May or may not be significant..waiting for analysis..

 

[Cifo]

This thought has crossed my mind: Do the Japanese have enough of a free-speech mentality to respond (pretty much) optimally to such a crisis? What I mean is, do real-time crises generally cause them to default to a boss-knows-best or never-question-the-boss mentality? Do they have a tendency to shout "Hai!", bow deeply and run off to their tasks realizing that the boss made a huge mistake? Or are they comfortable enough to openly discuss observations, data, opinions, etc? Compared to Americans, do they feel comfortable to question their bosses? What comes to mind is the Toyota sticking pedal situation, where someone decided to sit on the problem.

 

[ULTRA]

I think, and this is just me, that under the circumstances the ability to do ones job, to the letter, without argueing or procrastinating is a good thing. Standing around argueing would not help much I think.

 

[iceaura]

You can ask for a level commensurate with the potential harm.
”
and that exactly what has been done. -

Bullshit.

This Japanese reactor - at least one of the six at risk here, two of which have been flooded with salt water as the last resort before meltdown, a third of which is near that decision - was clearly not accident proofed at a level commensurate with the potential harm of its failure.

We are now looking at reasonable - not very high, but not in the minuscule range the sensible would accept - odds on meltdown and breach of the containment structure.

And even I'm sick of the panic mongering.
Here's some real info:

The misinformation and general misleading stuff around here is on the other side - false reassurances, irrelevancies about coal power, deflections into non-issues (at least we don't have to wade through a hundred detailed explanations about how it can't blow up like an atomic bomb - or is that still the case elsewhere?).

So when we see this:

No, if they can't keep the fuel cool (and no reason at this time to think they can't) then yes, it will melt down, and then it will be much like 3 Mile Island where the Reactor is turned into a pile of junk. An economic disaster.
- - -
and the death is so nasty that people really fear it. Plutonium found in reactor cores is one of the most toxic substances on earth.
”
It isn't that toxic, and then pretty much only if you inhale it, and being that Plutonium is nearly twice as dense as lead, the likelihood of that is very low.
- - -
Even if that happens it would be an economic event, like 3-Mile Island, not a significant radiation event.
- - -
They may be teetering on the edge of economic disaster but so far there is no indication that any of the containment vessels are at risk.
- - -
Yes, if it has survived a tsunami, a major earthquake, failure of backup cooling and an explosion, then the design was a good one.
- - -

why can't we treat it with the same disdain now routine for "panic mongering"?

edit in: Just saw it happen again - Bill Nye on CNN was asked to use up his time explaining how the reactor could not blow up like a bomb, because (according to the questioner) that was a common fear people have when they hear about "meltdown". To his credit, he didn't bite - spent the whole time talking about what a meltdown was, etc, no time on "bomb".

This has been going on for a generation now. When the money guys were talking Red Wing residents into hosting a nuke at Prairie Island, the town meetings were almost completely used up in reassuring people that the thing could not blow up like a bomb. It's a tactic.

 

[adoucette]

and breach of the containment structure.

Now I think you are just making shit up.
Base on WHAT information do you make this claim?
Source please.

You can ask for a level commensurate with the potential harm.

If that is impossible, you can prudently not build the damn things.

We will continue to build them because Western style reactors have never killed anyone, and I'll predict right now that ultimately no one will be killed by any of these reactors either.

If that happens Ice, will you finally admit that maybe they aren't so dangerous after all?

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Bullshit.

This Japanese reactor - at least one of the six at risk here, two of which have been flooded with salt water as the last resort before meltdown, a third of which is near that decision - was clearly not accident proofed at a level commensurate with the potential harm of its failure.

What potential of harm? If they flood it with salt water and that is that and no one dies, for 40 years of clean power, I call that a success.

We are now looking at reasonable - not very high, but not in the minuscule range the sensible would accept - odds on meltdown and breach of the containment structure.

More like we were before, now with what they are doing chances are unlikely its going to meltdown now. In fact its unlikely the reactor went uncontrollably critical or supercritical at all, and its likely all of this is simply a problem of decay heat.

I think, and this is just me, that under the circumstances the ability to do ones job, to the letter, without argueing or procrastinating is a good thing. Standing around argueing would not help much I think.

Depends on the situation, ultimately these type of behavior was very bad for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. You know when the Japanese doctors were dissection people alive they were just doing ones job, to the letter, without arguing.

 

[Trippy]

The misinformation and general misleading stuff around here is on the other side - false reassurances, irrelevancies about coal power, deflections into non-issues (at least we don't have to wade through a hundred detailed explanations about how it can't blow up like an atomic bomb - or is that still the case elsewhere?).

So when we see this: why can't we treat it with the same disdain now routine for "panic mongering"?

Pure nonsense.

 

[iceaura]

If that happens Ice, will you finally admit that maybe they aren't so dangerous after all?

Joke, right?

I'll continue to invoke the Feynman Rebut.

The misinformation and general misleading stuff around here is on the other side - false reassurances, irrelevancies about coal power, deflections into non-issues (at least we don't have to wade through a hundred detailed explanations about how it can't blow up like an atomic bomb - or is that still the case elsewhere?).

So when we see this: why can't we treat it with the same disdain now routine for "panic mongering"?
”
Pure nonsense.

Try reading the supporting evidence - quotes from right here.

IIRC you posted at one time somewhere around here that the "explosion" was just deliberate venting, no big deal, for another example. This slew of deflections and misleading "reassurances" is far more characteristic of the public info and this thread than any panic mongering.

Here's another:

What potential of harm? If they flood it with salt water and that is that and no one dies, for 40 years of clean power, I call that a success.

We do all know that even if the flooding stops a complete meltdown, "that" isn't "that", right?

Guys: none of this was supposed to happen. Go back a month, and read the reassurances about Japanese reactors, their chances of meltdown, etc. Now here we are on the brink of one.

If something like this happens at Prairie Island or Monticello, and the containment vessel is breached as is possible now, the Mississippi River is all downhill from there. What safety measures have been taken commensurate with that risk?

 

[ULTRA]

..Depends on the situation, ultimately these type of behavior was very bad for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. You know when the Japanese doctors were dissection people alive they were just doing ones job, to the letter, without arguing.

Hardly comparable! Since when were nuclear engineers Imperialist neo-fascists? :huh: