Tsunami, Japan
-
There is a significant difference, from what has been reported, between Chernobyl and Fukushima. They were unable to shut down the reactor at Chernobyl, whereas the The Japanese reactors have been shut down.When the earthquake occurred sensors cause safety mechanisms to automatically insert control rods into the reactor to halt the nuclear chain reaction. The fuel rods will still be physically and radioactively hot, and must be kept cool for ? (a week or so I have read and discussed). If they are not cooled, then the rods do actually "melt down",and release radiation.
The problems in Japan began when the Tsunami destroyed the diesel backup generators at the plant, forcing them to their battery backup which is only good for hours. If the level of water goes down, because pumps can't be kept up, and the rods are exposed to air, then they over heat, and when they are again flooded the zirconium sheathing around the rods will oxidize releasing hydrogen which builds up in the concrete containment building. This was probably ignited by sparks. They are now pumping seawater laced with boron into the reactors to cool them. The boron absorb neutrons released during the fission of Uranium. It is also a good part of the control rods used to shut down the reactors, and also helps to bring down the temperature.
The worst case scenario is a failure to keep cooling the rods which would cause them to melt and fall to the reactor containment vessel floor.
This is a boiling water style of reactor, and the criticism on this type of reactor is that there is a chance the rods could burn through the floor of the containment vessel. This is where the similarity to Chernobyl exists, because that is what happened there.
The difference is that Chernobyl had no containment vessel, and the core contained graphite, which when it burned sent the radioactive ash plume into the environment.
Therefore the prediction is, that if this should take place, radioactivity will be released into the environment, but would be much more limited than Chernobyl.
The argument rages over what this actually means, but since any radiation has serious health effects on the environment, and by extension, us, then....
What I wonder is, what was said at the high level meeting that decided on the location of this particular plant,(and who knows how many more).
I also often hear the assertion that we will be able to come up with Technology to deal with the carbon emissions we seem so free to deploy, and I wonder if we will ever learn that we can't out engineer nature. -
Hi,
I apologize for my English. Much of what I runs through my head is difficult fore me to express in the English language.
I have looked at the pictures of the tsunami. I found them fascinating and terrifying. It shows again how powerless the humans are against these elements.
What touched me the most is how many people have lost their lives there.
Even with the nuclear power plants was always stressed that they are safe. As one particularly in Japan, from experience, plans earthquake-safe.
There are no nuclear plants which have a hundred percent security. And the danger is not over. The people living there have to bear the consequences.
Even here in Germany nuclear power plants were built directly in an earthquake zone (Upper Rhine trench).
This shows that many events that are difficult or impossible to control. I hope again that people will become reasonable.
Charly
-
Yes, a tragical lesson one more time!
-
@unknownuser said:
It was an absurdity to build over and near seismic fractures!
In Japan do they have a choice other than not to build nuclear power stations?
-
@petercharles said:
@unknownuser said:
It was an absurdity to build over and near seismic fractures!
In Japan do they have a choice other than not to build nuclear power stations?
So this is a good analogy with all choices.
They made the choice. These are the consequences.
(Who are they? And why are they trusted with these choices? Who pays for their choices?) -
We must take risks! Think of all the good that has already been done.
Yes, this is a setback- and a big one too, but without risks, we will perish. I don't ever want to go there.
-
Someone said the other day that the deaths per kWh of electricity generation are minimal for nuclear power [even with Chernobyl] compared with hydroelectricity - where over the history of electricity generation the several 'burst dams' have killed many thousands !
However, I still think I'd prefer to be killed immediately in a flood than maybe die some months [or years] later from a radiation induced cancer...
BUT... actually I'd prefer not to die at all... or at least if I do die, to die at a time somewhat of my own choosing or action/inaction, and NOT at the whim of some grade-B engineer who fudged his calculations...
[I'm an expert too and I know how easy it is to convince yourself of your own infallibility - although I don't think anyone died from one of my Ruby scripts [YET!] [if so, see my lawyer!]
] 
-
@unknownuser said:
the deaths per kWh of electricity generation are minimal for nuclear power [even with Chernobyl] compared with hydroelectricity - where over the history of electricity generation the several 'burst dams' have killed many thousands !
Yes : absolutly right!
but ...what is the life of radioactive waste in years?
We give a wonderland to our children!
Open your eyes! And mind! -
@unknownuser said:
Open your eyes! And mind!
Sorry Pilou, I really don't mean or want to be or sound rude, but I think it is you who should 'open your eyes and mind'.
TIG is right. More people have been killed by both hydroelectric power (and coal mining I should add) than nuclear ever has.
Yes, there is a problem with waste in many current reactors, but nuclear physicists have found ways around this problem
but this will need massive global investment (stop invading Iraq and other eastern countries for one! Billions were spent just trying to topple Saddam!). You have to remember the reactors in Japan are 40 years old, and the exclusion zones is only 12 miles
and has been set up as a precautionary measure. Despite what western media are so obsessed by, the actual 'problem' is still
not a patch on the same scale disaster as Chernobyl.It's almost perverse that the western media are so obsessed by this, as the real killer has been the ocean. the 100% natural ocean.
-
I don't know. To me there is still something terribly ironic about using plutonium to create steam to generate electricity in a plant located in an area destined for earthquakes that are more than likely to cause a Tsunami.
Then to sit back and almost nonchalantly discuss the "friendly fire" collateral damage, that is in fact human life.
This thread was started by Honolulu, who's daughter is hopefully back home safely by now.
Sorry for hijacking your thread Honolulu.
-
Yes I'm sorry too.
But I do think that there is an important debate here too
Perhaps one that should be carried on in another thread?The temperature in n.Japan is -5ºc. I feel so sorry for the survivors left- it must be hell. I've already donated some money to the red cross.
My friend Richard says that the authorities are handling the situation very well, but basic supplies like milk and noodles are a little harder to find. The powercuts haven't happened yet- which is a good sign (the papers say the opposite!)
PS, Dale, you need to check out Thorium as an alternative to Uranium. Still in its infancy, it looks like it could have a really good future, as far as nuclear is concerned.
Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.
The Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk)
-
All go to the worst!
4 days losted with hiding the true!
There is only now copters for refresh reactors and swimming pool!
So nothing!
Are you blind? -
Please Pilou, there is no call for rudeness.
We should talk about this in a new thread (perhaps?).
-
Alas, it's to late for talk
I can just advice to my Tokyo Japan and French friends to try to escape themself if they can! -
That's cool. It is very late here too.
I've started a new thread here;
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=179&t=35874
so we can leave this thread in peace
-
I was 16 at the time. My parents home (out of view) just survived on the debris line. No utilities for some time. This area, the Hilo Iron Works in the background, and further beyond was turned into a park.
By the time the current tsunami reached Hawaii, it was greatly reduced.
[flash=640,390:2ydkdqw6]http://www.youtube.com/v/91Wh0_yNJhc?version=3[/flash:2ydkdqw6] -
What a dilemma. If you live in Tokyo, and can leave Japan, many would consider it. The fact is, that at this time, there is not enough radiation in Tokyo to warrant leaving.
What people want to know is, how near is safe, if the worst happens.
-
If the worst arrives best is go to under equateur line because winds are not very mixed between hemispheres!
Does this possible for an half of the Earth, that is a big question! -
-
The worst would be a meltdown in reactor 4; still not as bad as the US, and French atmospheric bomb test in the Pacific.
Dave, that is graphic!!!!! Thanks for the link.
Advertisement