Fukushima Nuclear Plant Accident

[stars2heaven]

I think this recent event in Japan is actualy one of the best reasons to support nuclear power if there ever was one. a lot of people just aren't looking at this in any kind of perspective. These plants just went through a tremendous natural disaster and despite this the number of people who have died from anything that resulted from it is still hundreds of times lower than some other energy production methods when there isn't a natural disaster to point to as a cause for deaths.

 

Seriously, the only real alternative to nuclear right now is still coal. Coal kills thousands of people every year (which is a LOT more than nuclear), and coal is far more destructive to the environment than nuclear power. While it may not be nice to be living next to Fukushima right now, its not nice to live next to any coal power plant any where, any time. Anyone who honestly thinks that they are going to save lives and the environment by eliminating nuclear power doesn't have much perspective on the alternatives.

[baduk]

Hi!

 

I hope that tepco can get some more reactors up and running asap!

 

This summer peak electricity demand will be much higher than can be supplied. There will be increased blackouts so we wont be able to use our air conditioners.

There are a lot of elderly people in japan and even in normal years hot summers claim lives from heat exhaustion.

 

I feel a lot of gratitude to the workers at the nuclear plants who are solving cooling problems each day. They are not doomed tho. I think it is a horrible thing to claim that they are doomed.

Their families also would not appreciate hearing such a thing even though the person saying it simply does not know what they are talking about.

 

There is a heavy stigma on nuclear energy because it is associated with nuclear weapons which have rightly held our world in terror for half a century.

This causes a blind fear that is grossly distorted out of proportion to other things we live with that we should be cautious about.

 

Since i live just 200 km south of the fukushima plant I think i have more reason to feel irrational fear about being exposed to poisonous fallout than many of you.

When I read some particularly alarmist piece in the news i do feel this momentary sensation that is something like what you feel when you peer off the edge of the roof of a tall building.

 

But I have to consider what effect this kind of fear has had. There was a big tsunami that laid waste to over a 300 km swath of the coast. Well over 25000 people are dead or missing.

There was also a huge number of people who were displaced from the tsunami and I think that overreaction to the radiological threat played a big role in preventing and delaying water, food, and other supplies from reaching them.

I am certain that the amount of danger the earthquake and tsunami represented is equal to that of the recent earthquakes in haiti and in the indian ocean.

The death toll was greatly limited by the regulations on building construction, public education about tsunamis, and infrastructure.

This kind of catastrophe should not be overshadowed by problems with the nuclear power plant that are by comparison insignificant from a humanitarian perspective.

 

It is also not healthy to place fallout into a separate category from other forms of industrial pollution so that we focus on it and ignore all the rest.

It is very desirable to do so tho, at least for people who have a stake in the coal industry. Their mutual cooperation forms a powerful political interest group.

More sensational articles are authored about the Fukushima nuclear incident, and our news media providers are always happy to air a visceral story.

Please make yourself familiar with the different things that have caused death and disease throuought history and be more objective when deciding what to be afraid of.

[ita]

Heliostats? they work fine if you're in a sunny part of the world, Spain's having enormous success with them.

Sure, the amount of energy generated by solar power plants in Spain covered a whopping 2,7% of the country's total energy demand in 2010. A step in the right direction, yes, but hardly enough to power the whole country. They still have to rely on non-renewable sources.

 

Hydroelectric? again, if you've got the river to do it, they work great. Worst case scenario? dambust, but that's never actualy occured.

Yes, they work great (besides from sometimes extensive disruption of the local ecosystem) but then again not all countries have the geography and rivers suitable for building dams. I'm not sure what you mean by 'dambust', but if you're saying that hydroelectric power stations have never actually failed, you're dead wrong. The Banqiao dam failure is especially notable.

 

Coal? produces some radiation, harmful to the environment. Worst case scenario? explosion or fire.

Try 'produces sh*toads of radioactive particles straight into the atmosphere'. Nuclear power plants have much stricter regulations on how much radiation that's allowed to escape into the atmosphere. As a side note, standing next to a 1GW coal plant for a year would apparently make you absorb a dose of radiation 100 times higher than if you were standing next to a 1GW nuclear plant.

 

And let's not forget that coal mining itself is an extremely dangerous business. Surface mining destroys vast areas of land. Thousands of coal miners die in accidents every year, with China being a particularly egregious example.

 

Nuke fission plant? worst case scenario? meltdown, irradiates a large amount of land, with massive casualties.Has happened many times.

Meltdowns that irradiate huge amounts of land with massive casualties have happened many times? Not really.

Chernobyl? Sure.

The Kyshtym disaster? Not a meltdown but a chemical explosion but sure, people died and large amounts of land were irradiated to a varying degree. Most of it was uninhabited wilderness though.

Fukushima? Irradiation, but the only people dead are the workers who were caught in the initial explosion.

Three Mile Island? No casualties, very little radiation escaped into the surrounding areas.

The Windscale fire? Radioactive materials were released but there were no casualties and people still live in the neighboring areas.

 

Compare those incidents to the amount of nuclear reactors in the world that are in operation and how many that have been operated throughout the years.

 

Nuclear power actually has the best safety record of any power generation industry. There has only ever been one significant accident where harm has occurred (three in total over how ever many years), and while far more severe on a local scale than any coal/oil/gas plant related accident, it's completely drowned out in the scheme of things.

^ Skevitj's post pretty much sums it up.

[Skevitj]

Actually, I've now seen a few consistent reports claiming there have been two fatalities at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, however they were reported missing just before the earthquake hit. Cause of death hasn't been released, but it certainly look like it was due to blunt force trauma (I think that's the medical term), maybe a pipe breaking during the earthquake but definitely not radiation poisoning, meaning while a tragedy, it's no different to an incident at any other plant.

Reference: 1 & 2

 

21 and 24, damn...

Edited April 4, 2011 by Skevitj

[CommanderCrazy]

Chernobyl should never be mentioned in a debate about nuclear safety.

Sure, the reactor exploded and a very VERY large area is now useless because of it, but the cause? Massive human error.

 

There was a scheduled test to be run, and the leading supervisor had altered the power draw off the safe levels. When the test begins, all of the turbines shut off for a little while, causing a heat buildup above normal levels (due to the leading supervisor altering the power draw).

The control officer noticed this, and declared emergency. The rods were pulled out of the pool. After a while, the pool still hot, the rods were put back in, leading to an immense heatspike, while the turbines were still off, causing steam building up to critical levels. Once it couldnt take any more, the rods melted, and the top blew off in a large explosion.

 

<<Please note that there are gaps in my little paragraph there. I got the basics of what happened, not the full story.>>

Edited April 4, 2011 by CommanderCrazy

[Skevitj]

It's still appropriate to mention it though since it did happen, no matter the cause. It's not like it couldn't happen again, given the right reactor and right circumstances.

 

At any rate, it wasn't entirely human error: The reactor design became more and more unstable as the power output dropped, and the "safety" devices to prevent it being operated in this region were nothing more than a button and a few lights. It was a massive failure in safety planning which has had a considerable effect on the planning process nowadays. It is standard practice to include possible problems due to accidental/malicious use by the operators in a safety analysis of any engineering project, even a basic analysis would have revealed how easy it would've been to set off the chain.

 

On another note: It wasn't the fuel rods which were reinserted, it was the graphite control rods which had been partially removed to counter the instability in power output (hoping the moderator would even it out? I doubt it though). The older design of control rods actually displace a significant amount of the liquid moderator in the core before taking effect, meaning the output actually spikes up during insertion, producing the massive heat spike which started the chain. Once it heated up enough -> graphite being just carbon and relatively flammable -> The control rods didn't last long, meaning there was nothing left in there to limit the reaction rate (as the moderator was effectively boiling off as well). Big Bada Boom. There were so many design flaws in the reactor, I'm not sure they could have done a worse job.

[Harbringe]

Well last nite they announced it is being raised to a level 7 nuclear disaster from a previous rating of 5 .There was footage of Japanese families being told that its unlikely they will ever be able to return home and that the quarantine zone is likely to be extended , by how much I don't know. This now puts it on the level with Chernobyl.

[csgators]

Here are some hi-res photos of the plant.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Well last nite they announced it is being raised to a level 7 nuclear disaster from a previous rating of 5 .There was footage of Japanese families being told that its unlikely they will ever be able to return home and that the quarantine zone is likely to be extended , by how much I don't know. This now puts it on the level with Chernobyl.

Yeah, I was just about to post the very same thing. I actually just saw it on the news (sky) here in Italy.

 

I should say that I'm surprised that there are people here saying that this should reassure us as to nuclear power, but I'm not...am I? I don't know. I often give people too much credit, so then when something as ignorant as that pops out, I'm often taken by surprise. I'm usually quite harsh with people, as a species, but that's always tempered with compassion, especially for the less-bright members. Otherwise...

 

The technology for renewable energy is already here, pro-nuke folks. It's only that no one wants to spend enough money to implement enough windmills, turbines, panels, etc. It's simply a question of wanting to do it. Discussions of "economic feasability" are ignorant and unenlightened. How "economically feasible" is it to poison areas of our landmass so that they'r uninhabitable, while making the oceans radioactive at the same time? Those type of discussions are always centered on a self-serving logic that, surprise surprise, leaves out huge areas of consideration.

 

Poor, poor people that believe in this poisonous folly.

 

 

[marharth]

Well last nite they announced it is being raised to a level 7 nuclear disaster from a previous rating of 5 .There was footage of Japanese families being told that its unlikely they will ever be able to return home and that the quarantine zone is likely to be extended , by how much I don't know. This now puts it on the level with Chernobyl.

Yeah, I was just about to post the very same thing. I actually just saw it on the news (sky) here in Italy.

 

I should say that I'm surprised that there are people here saying that this should reassure us as to nuclear power, but I'm not...am I? I don't know. I often give people too much credit, so then when something as ignorant as that pops out, I'm often taken by surprise. I'm usually quite harsh with people, as a species, but that's always tempered with compassion, especially for the less-bright members. Otherwise...

 

The technology for renewable energy is already here, pro-nuke folks. It's only that no one wants to spend enough money to implement enough windmills, turbines, panels, etc. It's simply a question of wanting to do it. Discussions of "economic feasability" are ignorant and unenlightened. How "economically feasible" is it to poison areas of our landmass so that they'r uninhabitable, while making the oceans radioactive at the same time? Those type of discussions are always centered on a self-serving logic that, surprise surprise, leaves out huge areas of consideration.

 

Poor, poor people that believe in this poisonous folly.

 

Sadly, out world is ruled by money.

 

So it doesn't matter if something wipes out all life on earth, if someone or something makes money off it, it will exist.

 

If something comes up that challenges the current money flow, it won't happen.