Japan: "No cause for alarm"

X

Xtal

New member
Pete C. wrote:

Some folks seem to sincerely believe the nonsense they are fed and have
no interest in thinking otherwise. Some folks believe that their
unresearched opinions are fact. Some folks believe that their poitical
opinion is fact and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.


Where it really falls down is the willingness to lie to support your
political stance. Anti-nukles do that consistantly. They rant against
radiation ignoring the fact that coal fired plants release more
radiation than nuclear plants. (I'd need to study a bit to see if that
includes Chernobyl when the entire set of coal plants is compared agains
the entire set of nuclear plants. It definitely includes the large
but more limited releases in Japan this year).

The radiation leak situation in Japan is a mess and far worse than TMI.
The claim that no one has been killed by nuclear power from civilized
plants is going to stop being true. Not to the point of matching black
lung deaths but it will stop being true.

Folks used TMI to strangle nuclear power in the US for decades so why
shouldn't they use a tried and true tactic to strangle nuclear power in
the entire civilized world? Rather than pushing for a dynamically
stable replacement system they push for total elimination.

It's like the anti-gun folks who consistantly lie about law abiding gun
carrying citizens as a way to support their political stance.

Rational folks hold opposing political stances and understand that
others disagree. Rational folks try to avoid lying to support their own
stances. The anti-nuke folks are therefore not rational.
 
Japan: "No cause for alarm"

NHK reports...

"Radioactivity in the ocean 8km away, of radium #131 off the coast was way
beyond legal levels."

"16.4 times of radioactive iodine has been reported."

Does anyone but me get a sense of failure of Japan to disclose accurate
information?

Andy
 
Also, little reported except on NHK, 68,000+ are out of running water.

Hospitals also affected can't perform kidney dialysis, requiring 150 liters
of clean water per treatment.

More deaths resulting.

Andy
 
J. Clarke wrote:

Replacement is stopped by political activism not rational reasons.
Check. This event has also shifted what system I prefer. I used to be
about even between the US sodium cooled fast breeder design and the
Canadian heavy water cooled slow breeder design. I now favor the CanDu
system because it is dynamically stable in the face of coolant loss.
Both use fuel that can be processed on systems that can not be used to
produce bomb material and both can be fueled with recycled spent fuel
that is reprocessed in a way that can not be used to produce bomb
material.


I am still unhappy with the location of the San Onofre plant in southern
California. I once toured the place as a part of an IEEE group. My
best friend from high school spent half of his career working there.

The location should be far enough inland that a tsunami will not reach
it. That's several kilometers on reasonably level land. A lot less in
the hilly terrain near San Onofre.

One big lesson from this event - Put the fuel tanks for the backup
cooling system underground not above ground. Retrofit projects to do
that at all plants should start in the next couple of years.
 
In article , [email protected]
says...

Well, one solution is to deliver it all to Jimmy Carter's peanut farm
and let him deal with it. He's the one who passed the edict forbidding
it to be recycled in nuclear reactors and requiring that it be stored
forever and ever instead. Maybe when he starts to glow in the dark
he'll rethink that particular act of stupidity.
 
J. Clarke wrote:

Semantics.

There's an internal containment vessel that holds the reactor itself.
It's a huge steel kettle that can be seen in the aerial photos. It is
not breached but it has been damaged irreparably. Once the short half
life elements settle and the vessel cools it will need to be defueled,
decommissioned and removed.

There's an external containment building that holds the internal
containment vessel, spent fuel storage tanks, control mechanisms and a
whole mess of other stuff. It's a huger reenforced concrete building
that has been blown to bits. The aerial photos show the internal vessel
through what used to be its concrete. It looks like you call the
external containment build a "missile shield". Okay, that was one of
its design criteria. No problem calling it that.

The radiation that is getting out would be from the primary coolant
loop and other material that was stored in the external containment
building. Bad stuff unless it is compared to Chernobyl. Of course it
is compared to Chernobyl all the time in the press.
 
Re: [email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:


Stupid? Alrtighty, mister nuclear physicist wannabe. You just have no idea
what you're talking about.

Have to? Why? It's harmless in its present location, and right now nobody
goes near there, the area has been sealed off for years.

Pay attention for once. Do people in Japan seem to think this is "not much"?
Are you so compelled to argue with me over everything that you shut down
reality? Seriously?

Can't you read?


Why don't you, since you're an armchair/toolshed nuclear expert.


Again, do you live in a cave? Earthquake? tsunami? Major radiation
contamination? Durrrrrrrr???? Does your television or radio get something
called *news*? Really, WTF is the matter with you? Other than your
compulsive need to argue which interferes with your common sense?

Go away.
 
Re: [email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:


20 miles vs 50 miles. Google it.


No. But you knew that.


Pick one:
a: With a rectal probe
b: by truncating the sentence so it seems to say something different
c: by trying to pick nits and divert the discussion to a needless argument


Nothing was disposed of at Chernobyl. Sealing it up means no need to clean
up and transport tons of hazardous waste.


So what? That whole reactor complex is toast forever. The surrounding area
will not be habitable or workable. MIght as well seal it up with enough
treated concrete to withstand anything.
 
Re: [email protected]

Doug Freyburger wrote:


All of what you wrote makes sense to me, except that I think they need to
reevaluate every reactor on the planet in view of what has happened in
Japan, and, although I know they won't, shut down and replace any reactor
which isn't designed to withstand the maximum possible natural disaster
threat to that area. I can't think of a logical reason why that shoudl not
be a good idea. Of course those who are heavily invested in such facilities
will never allow it to happen.

There is a reactor near NYC which supposedly is at serious risk based on
faults which were discovered after its contruction, although I don't know
more than that as it was reported on the news. I'm not hysterically against
nuclear power as another poster misunderstands, but I am in favor of making
damn sure such a potentially dangerous energy source is operated under the
very latest and safest methods humanly possible, and I'm opposed to running
reactors which are not designed to withstand any potential threat as it is
presently understood.
 
In article ,
[email protected]d says...

So you're saying that they evacuated 50 miles and claimed they evacuated
20? If not what are you saying?


No, I have no idea what you meant. Are you a native speaker of English?


I'm trying to figure out what your Chinglish or whatever language you're
writing means. If you would answer a reasonable question rather than
making some smartass remark you might actually be able to have a
conversation.


You haven't explained why it's better to encase a reactor core in
concrete than it is to remove it completely.

You're acting like a reactor that has suffered some minor damage but is
now in cold shutdown should be treated the same way as one that could
not be brought to cold shutdown and destroyed itself while running far
above full rated power.

Of course you _want_ Fukushima to be another Chernobyl, don't you.


Three of the reactors are shot. The three that were not in operation
should work just fine. Why do you want to leave radioactive material in
place when it can be removed and recycled?

As to the surrounding area not being "habitable or workable", please
present your evidence.
 
Re: [email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:


Now you're a psychiatrist too? What else you got, mister amateur expert?


Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Dumbest assed remark reaffirmed. Try simple interpretation of the obvious
some time.


Which proves nothing. When does your flight leave so I can celebrate?


Neither have you, actually. But go ahead and pretend you never heard of
Chernobyl. I'm not going to present anything for you when you can read it
for yourself without my help. You just choose, or pretend, not to.

Go away, you're a waste of time and bandwidth.
 
On 3/21/2011 9:56 PM, Andy wrote:

This doesn't surprise me at all - it's typically Japanese to
downplay/minimize bad news.
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:45:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Unless you can provide photos, how do you know that there are not huge
chunks of concrete and fuel rods on the ground? Even if there were,
we would not hear about it. They have to protect their businesses so
they can continue to make big profits from this killer form of power.
 
Re: [email protected]

Doug Freyburger wrote:


OK, so it's not as bad as Chernobyl, but it's also been understated by those
saying it is the same as Three Mile Island in terms of impact where no such
release of radiation occurred. But the fact still seems to be that Fukushima
was underengineered for the potential impact of a fairly predictable
multiple natural disaster. The natural events are a matter of when, not if,
and how intense is a crapshoot. I don't think you shoot craps when operating
a nuclear reactor. There are serious lessons to be learned worldwide and
changes that should be made in retrospect.

MartyB
 
In article , [email protected] says...

However it's difficult to get far from the coast in Japan. Remember
that for all its population and economic dynamism, it's still a group of
fairly small islands.


You're trading one vulnerability for another there. Underground it's
difficult to float the tanks so that they will resist earthquake damage.
Above ground it's much easier. Perhaps they should be duplicated.
 
On 22 Mar 2011, you wrote in rec.food.cooking:



dsi1,

When I learned NHK was a government run news network, I became suspect,
without proof. :(

Best,

Andy
 
In article , [email protected] says...

"Containment" has a specific engineering meaning. The steel pressure
veseel containing the reactor is not generally called the "containment",
it is called the "pressure vessel". The heavily reinforced concrete
structure many feet thick that encloses the pressure vessel is called
the "containment".

Then there is an ordinary building that surrounds the containment proper
and serves as a missile shield and machinery space.

There's a nice diagram at
that shows the
pieces.

The square building is not the "containment", it is just a building
around the containment. The containment is inside that building, is
round, and is shaped kind of like an upside-down light bulb. Inside the
containment is the steel structure that you are calling the
"containment".

If you're seeing something round looking down into the building from
above it's not the pressure vessel, it's the containment.

Looking at the photos, I see that the curtain wall has come off the
front or side of some of the buildings leaving the steel frame intact.
It's not possible to see clearly enough beyond that to tell if the
containment itself is open, however if it is then the huge chunks of
concrete that would have come off would have knocked that steel framing
down or plowed huge holes in it, and there are none in evidence.
 
Back
Top