Fukushima Nuclear Plant Accident

[raatorotta]

I was wondering why there is no thread about this. So i made one.

 

The earhtquake in Japan have had worse effects they ever imagined. Nuclear power plant in Fukushima was damaged seriously. Three of the six nuclear reactors have gone to a partial meltdown. Fukushima has ten times more nuclear fuel than Chernobyl had. Reactors have been cooled down with seawater that makes water seriously radiated. Plutonium has been found on soil near power plant. There was measured a 10 million times higher radiation values compared to normal. But later it was said to been mistake. The real amount was 10,000 times higher. That is horrible large number too. Evacuation has been made only in radius of 20 kilometres from power plant, even the measurements of radiation are too high even 70 kilometres from the site.

 

Post your information and comments about the accident.

[MarkInMKUK]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725

 

Gives a clear and coherent status at the current time, with the closest we have to accurate figures.

[MarkInMKUK]

You might also find THIS article on radiation safety to be interesting reading

[Skevitj]

You have to love some of the articles out there. Yes radiation poisoning can be deadly, but the media reports which love the big number so much always *forget* to include information so people can understand just how minor the increases actually are, or even just how conservatives the "warning" and "danger" levels are.

 

It's like telling someone they're being crushed by over 100,000 Pascals and face-palming yourself when they look confused.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

"We should stop running away from radiation"...?...?! http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/wallbash.gif

 

That's the most blatant piece of pro-nuclear propaganda I've read in a while. It reads like something out of the 1950's, or better yet, the turn of the century, when doctors were making radioactive water for you to drink that would cure all your ills, take all your tooth pain away...until your jaw fell off (true story).

 

I suggest whoever wrote that article go buy a house near the Fukushima reactor and live there for the rest of his/her life, since it's relatively safe compared to everything else, like "having a visit to a hospital and getting an x-ray".

 

There was even concrete, outright misinformation there. I think the palliative "don't worry, there's no iodine" at the Fukushima reactors is a bit betrayed by the fact that radioactive iodine levels are many thousands of times higher than acceptable in the ambient/sea now. So where did the iodine come from, then? Santa Claus?

 

And what self-respecting journalist relies on...get this...official Russian government statistics! Holy crap in a handbag, you want to tell me that only a handful of people have died from that nightmare? I've watched easy-to-find documentaries of guys that were there saying everyone they knew there had died, including the pilots who were flying over the place.

 

Boy oh boy, I think I'll just stop now before I start giving suggestions to what should be done to "people" that mislead their fellow man in such a way.

[csgators]

Over 100,000 people died mining coal in the United States in the last century alone. To add this stellar factoid, coal mines put more radiation into the air than nuclear power plants do.

[DeTomaso]

Over 100,000 people died mining coal in the United States in the last century alone. To add this stellar factoid, coal mines put more radiation into the air than nuclear power plants do.

 

... unless their fuel rods start melting down!

"Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain". How true

[Harbringe]

Over 100,000 people died mining coal in the United States in the last century alone. To add this stellar factoid, coal mines put more radiation into the air than nuclear power plants do.

 

I'm neither pro or anti nuclear as far as an energy source goes and what you say about coal is true but nuclear energy or better yet its source raw uranium is not handled nor processed in the same manner as coal .You wont see workers hefting 50 lbs bags of uranium around like their sacks of potatoes or open bulk carriers of the stuff , which you do with coal .Uranium from start to finish is a very controlled substance and at every step exposure to it is limited as much as possible ,which usually means in sealed and shielded containers.If uranium was handled and processed in a similar manner to which coal is ,100,000 dead would be a small number.Put it this way the Russian's have a assassination technique where in the target is pricked with a needle containing a few microns of uranium u - 235 and a month later the person is dead ,you could swallow a gram of coal and not die ,though you would probably get sick.

 

Wiz is right what were seeing is the nuclear industry send out its hacks , filling the media with bogus information in order to protect itself.

 

Your comparison though true doesn't apply because of the way coal vs uranium is processed and handled.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Harbringe

[Vindekarr]

I was very much pro neuclear until this happened.

 

I know this is extraordinary circumstances, I know it took a horrific earthquake and tsunami to cause this, I know Fission plants dont just start melting of their own accord. But I really think we need to step away from Fission, it's just not safe enough.

 

Especialy with options like heliostat stations, which work in a very similar way, but use an efficient solar system instead of fission, or even clean coal. Neuclear *FUSION* plants are what we really need, because basicaly once those are going they're going and we can leave them to run and they do hurt the environment or spewradiation, but they arent here yet, and for the time being, I just dont think we can trust the safety of neuclear power stations.

 

It's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that WHEN something goes wrong, the results are horrific, and it's not if, it's WHEN, it's happened atleast 3 times in the last 60 years and that's too damn often. The damage they cause is forever, and while they're an excellent option when they work, when they go wrong, the results are simply too severe for them to be a viable option.

 

This may be controversial, but I think the Japanese energy co's response to this crisis was severely lacking. It was revealed today that the only reason this sham has lasted this long was that the CEO of the company in charge of the cleanup had a nervous breakdown, and left his directors scrabbling to try and take over the company. This could have all been resolved by now if these venal little scumbags hadnt been fighting over who could profit most from this.

[Skevitj]

It's not that simple, we can't just "step away" from nuclear power in favor of solar. They're two completely different supply profiles:

 

 

Brief explanation of power demand/supply (I'm sure most people already know, this is just a primer for those who don't):

Power consumption can be divided into two major parts, the Base Line Load and Peak Load. The base load is the continuous load which is needed all day every day, while the peak load is what increases rapidly if people turn their air conditioners on at the same time. The base line is due mainly to industry, while the peak load is due to domestic consumption, the vast majority being air-conditioners. Supplying peak power is absolutely horrible. For example here our main energy provider (government owned) is generating massive losses in $$ every year trying to build peak power stations (Open Cycle gas) and power lines to counter the fact that the majority of the state feels it's their right to turn their air-conditioners on at the same time. (Relative costs for generating peak power can be >100x higher than for the base load).

 

Nuclear power is the single best source in existence to supply base load power (in terms of supply profile), due to the very low cost of the fuel, and high output per plant. However they handle rapidly changing loads poorly (mostly just a poor $$ efficiency, but for a capitalist society, that's the single most important factor). Most coal plants also fall into the baseline supply category, still able to handle varying loads, but they don't like it.

 

Solar power on the other hand is probably the worst base line supplier in existence, but is excellent at supplying peak loads (most of the time), since it ramps up production at the same time we ramp up air-conditioners. If we were to replace base line stations, like coal and nuclear with solar and wind, we'd have far too much power at some times, and brownouts on a national scale at other times. Open Cycle gas turbines are able to handle peak loads better than most, but this comes at the cost of efficiency ($$ and pollution).

 

Ignoring the initial capital and research costs, there is one thing which is hindering worldwide, large scale deployment of renewable resources like solar: Fast response energy storage devices/methods are essential to buffer the highly variable output of the majority of renewable generators, and with centralized power plants, the storage has the be centralized as well, which pushes current technology pretty damn far. It's one hell of a problem to solve, but even if we do, power supply is such an important part of modern society, redundancy demands that there are strong baseline suppliers, like nuclear power which can step it and support a partially inoperable (due to damage or just lack of wind/light etc) grid.

 

I'm not trying to push a point (except that people who turn on their air-conditioners instead of opening a window should be thrown into the nearest coal fired furnace) just provide a basic background on the energy supply problems which can force business/government to be so tolerant of nuclear power and any accidents. So if you feel there is anything biased in above text, tell me and I'll fix it up.

 

 

IMO: Nuclear is here to stay, its output characteristics make it invaluable, and the low volume fuels make it perfect for countries like Japan where other fuel sources and even most renewable sources are not viable. Accidents will always happen, but technology will always progress to reduce the chance and severity. One day we might find a completely different supply which fulfills all our needs, but until then, even a second Chernobyl would be a small price to pay compared to the humanitarian disaster if nuclear was completely replaced with other current commercially proven solutions.