The "more political thread" besides "Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants" scientific one [Archive]

jlduh

Mar31-11, 09:07 AM

As agreed with PF Mentor Borek, i start this new thread which intends to be a complement to the big and permanently updated "Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants" thread (which started here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200 ).

This new thread is created so anybody can posts messages, infos and reflexions about what can be described as more "political bits" around the technical and scientific discussion which will continue to take place in the other thread. So everything of interest which can be considered as a little bit to political with the risk of adding confusion on the other thread can have some place here, with moderation still existing of course.

Political doesn't mean in my mind it is intended to become a mess with unpolite or irrelevant "trolling": it is supposed to stay as respectful of any intervention as long as they cite sources of informations and express in polite ways the opinion of everybody, whatever these opinions are. The aim is to build a source of infos on the "arounds" of the accident development and hopefully, considering the importance of the event in Japan, develop a real constructive (even animated!) debate. Subjects can be around the way Tepco, or autorities, release infos (on measurements, upcoming events...), and take some decisions (for example about evacuations related to risks elements, management of the situation...). It can also be around the implications for nuclear industry, in terms of safety or future development, about decisions made by governments on this matter. And i think on even more subjects! PLEASE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN DOCUMENT YOUR OPINIONS, AND SOURCE THE INFOS OR NEWS YOU GIVE (link to source). Visions from "insiders" or "outsiders" of nuke industry are welcome. Visions from INSIDERS FROM JAPAN are also welcomed of course!

The usefulness of this thread is to keep concentrated on facts and analysis of scientific matters on the other thread while having a place to discuss, as i said, more about the "big picture" around the accident in Fukushima (and this can and will also involve scientific and technical matters of course!).

You will find below my first post on this thread (I'm french so excuse my english if you see some mistakes!), which explains also why this "Big Picture" might have an influence on more analytical scientific work, which obviously is based mainly on released elements from Tepco and authorities, and this "material", at some point will (and maybe already has) some political elements in its content or in the way it is released or presented by the sources.

I'll be absent for two weeks starting this Saturday so if you don't see me it doesn't mean that i don't care but just that i will not have access to the net for 2 weeks (so I'll have 100 pages to read coming back!).

I just want to add that these threads about the accident have a second very important usefulness in my opinion, which will appear with time: it will become a quite complete and comprehensive diairy, hours after hours and days after days, of the events, of the data, of the articles and links, of the declarations and official releases, and this will be of even a bigger usefulness with some time because it will help people to draw an "after the fact picture" of "what happened" in the Fukushima accident and around it...

It will show also the possible (understandable or less understandable, time will tell) errors, misconceptions or contradictions, made by Tepco, authorities and... us as we write as contributors here! And this will be also important after the facts to see the "evolution of the film". Don't misinterpret my wording which is only a style figure: i know this has nothing to do with a movie for those on the ground of course... But let's hope the "film" will not be a bad ending story and that it will be not to long- but i doubt a bit on this last one...

PRACTICAL ADVICE:

PLEASE SOURCE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN WITH LINKS. IF A COMMENT IS RELATED TO A POST ON THE OTHER SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL THREAD ABOUT FUKUSHIMA SITUATION, PLEASE LINK TO THE SPECIFIC POST NUMBER (the link to individual posts is obtained by clicking on the number of the specific post, for example this one is #1 on the top right part of the subject: click on it and the new page that opens with the post will give you the direct link to copy for reference). This will help cross reference between the two threads!

jlduh

Mar31-11, 09:11 AM

As I saw in the last days that some contributors (ok, including me!) in the main Fukushima thread are getting a little more "political" in their comments even those who have had strong scientific approach until now, i would like to comment on some recent remarks and infos:

1) Yes, the way autorities communicates is strange, unclear, misleading. The subject of evacuations is and will become more and more controversial as other infos like those from IAEA about evacuation criterias arrive in the game... Put you into the shoes of somebody leaving, for example, in the area of Litate villlage and i think you could have this impression too. To me this seems to show that there is lack of cooperation between them (IAEA and TEPCO and some japanese autorities), and also probably some gap between their positions (not to say there may be rising tensions). I see Anne Lauvergeon (CEO of Areva) is going to Japan, and all this let me think that the all industry (so also IAEA) is smelling, day after day more, the "bad smoke" that is going around this accident. There is huge money and interests behind this desaster, and this will add for sure to the confusion and possibly tensions between various interests and actors (because in addition there is also competition within the industry!). AT some point, i think conceivable that if the smoke smells really bad, cooperation could really turn to conflict between the japanese (Tepco and japanese autorities) and international players, for the simple fact that if the accident becomes a "very bad accident" -whatever you define it- in the mind of more and more public opinions, a possible option by the nuke industry will be to put the blame on TEPCO and japanese autorities for their lack of transparence, reactivity and even for bad decisions, so to show that this a Japanese responsability if this becomes worse. Remember what has bee told with the Tchernobyl catastroph (we are different, they were russians an that explains the mess). I foresee possible trend towards something similar if "smoke" is getting smelling really bad. And i think this has to be also debated here because we don't have access here on pure scientific infos to do the analysis (think so would be a myth!), we have mainly access on bits of infos officially released by one or another player, this is completely different! So knowing how and possibly why those players are saying this or that is important to properly do the analysis here, and to put some "uncertainty factor" into them...

2) Yes, this question of recriticality (major or even local) is also fuzzy and yes it is strange that 3 weeks after the beginning, there is not a clear statement based on quite basic measurements about this. I see expressed by IAEA experts the concerns about radioactive Chlorine showing possible re-criticality, and i must admit that this forum is SEVREAL DAYS AHEAD that kind of statements, as very quickly, based upon LIMITED INFOS, some specialists here put some strong elements together to say that something like that was probably occuring at some point!

I think that when science leads to some conclusions and that these conclusion seem to appear only later on in official statements, or appear in misleading or uncomplete terms, or don't even appear, then I think even real scientifics can adress this and become a little bit political without "trolling"?

Then, this is not political opinions based only on smoke, this is political based on the analysis of smoke with an eye opened on the possible "big picture"!

jlduh

Apr1-11, 02:40 AM

Again, this gives an idea of the level of unpreparation for a major accident. If it a question o cost of investment this is silly (these dosimeters are costless in comparison with what we talk about of course). The second problem is that they endanger the safety of their workers and did it against the standards ad the regulations, ONCE AGAIN. THis gives a highly unprofessionnal image of their management... and TEPCO is one of the World Leaders of energy producers, especially in nuclear plants.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_24.html

TEPCO reprimanded over sloppy radiation checks
Japan's nuclear safety agency has reprimanded Tokyo Electric Power Company over its failure to ensure the safety of workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant due to shortages of radiation monitors.Friday, April 01, 2011 13:30 +0900 (JST)

Does somebody know how this new dosimeter affair came to the ears of the Japanese Safety Agency (the article doesn't say it). It is not said that Tepco told them, so I wonder if this was again hidden by Tepco and for some reason revealed after the fact?

To me this is unbelievable to see such hidden practices, especially when we know the amount of frauds Tepco did in the last 10 years.

jlduh

Apr1-11, 02:57 AM

Ok a little bit more info on this below. Now we know that the revelation came from one worker (who maybe called the NHK?) who explained its worries: “I do not know how much I was irradiated and I told TEPCO about my worries.”

Every day 180 workers did not have any dosimeter (not clear from when to when, though)!

http://www.majiroxnews.com/2011/04/01/investigation-did-tepco-endanger-nuke-workers/

Investigation: Did TEPCO Endanger Nuke Workers?
04/01/2011 By majiroxnews

Up to 180 TEPCO workers per day were not provided with radiation dosimeters. There were only 320 dosimeters out of 5,000 available after the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO gave one to each group leader.

Kazuo Yamanaka, section chief of TECPCO, said, “We apologize to those people who were axious about being exposed to radiation.”

This gives by the way a better idea of the conditions in which workers were operating on site after the accident. I woudn't be surprised that a fair number of these workers were from subcontractors, as we know that in the first days this has been also mentionned against Tepco to use mainly subcontractors for the first operations.

And recent info confirm this is an ongoing management scheme:

http://www.blindbatnews.com/2011/03/japan-report-shows-tepco-out-of-touch-due-to-sub-contracting-sub-contracting-continues-even-now/2162

Kyodo News reporting that sub-contracting, and even sub-sub-contracting, is rampant at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and is playing a major role in the problems there.

Kyodo News interviewed one of the workers that was sent to the hospital with Beta Burns last week. It turns out the worker is a sub-sub-contractor. He said the reason they didn’t have protective gear is the fact that TEPCO has a lack of communication with its sub contractors. Tokyo Electric calls its sub-contractors ”associate enterprises.”

For those interested, an old documentary NUCLEAR GINZA (1995) about some aspects of nuclear industry structure in Japan (pyramidal structure with sub-contractors hiring poors at the bottom). Did it evolve is the question.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/226517-Nuclear-Ginza-A-look-inside-Japan-s-nuclear-industry

jlduh

Apr1-11, 04:20 AM

More on the real life of these workers, here:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81697.html

FOCUS: Courageous workers at troubled nuclear plant endure tough conditions
FUKUSHIMA, Japan, March 29, Kyodo

Each of the employees of Tokyo Electric Power Co. and other workers engaged in containing damage at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is given 30 survival food crackers and a 180 milliliter pack of vegetable juice for breakfast after getting up just before 6 a.m.

Around 400 workers including subcontractors are working there and are given just two meals per day, according to Kazuma Yokota, an official of the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

Yokota stayed at the nuclear power plant damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami for five days through March 26 to check on progress in the ongoing operations.==Kyodo

jlduh

Apr1-11, 04:55 AM

About decisions of japan nuclear watchdog not to evacuate further (20kms ordered, 20 to 30kms volunteerly) despite the recent IAEA statements...

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_34.html
Nuclear watchdog defends its decision
Japan's nuclear safety watchdog says it sees no reason to change the zone for which the government advised residents to stay indoors or evacuate voluntarily.

The Nuclear Safety Commission made the remark to reporters on Thursday, following reports by the IAEA that radiation levels twice as high as its criterion for evacuation were detected in soil at a village outside the zone.Thursday, March 31, 2011 19:37 +0900 (JST)

jlduh

Apr1-11, 05:22 AM

Tepco announces that "all data on radiation leaked from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant" will have to reviewed because of "mistakes in the program"!

I won't comment to much, but for sure, scientific analysis can only lead to reliable conclusions IF source data are reliable. Which obviously some of them are not, for various reasons.

It starts to be an addition of a lot of "mistakes" for one of the 4 world leaders of Energy industry...

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_28.html

Program errors force TEPCO to review all data
Tokyo Electric Power Company says it will review all data on radiation leaked from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, citing errors in a computer program.

The utility says it found errors in the program used to analyze radioactive elements and their levels, after some experts noted that radiation levels of leaked water inside the plant were too high.

jlduh

Apr1-11, 05:28 AM

A big thanks to CAINNECH for its first posting on the forum (on the main scientific PF thread), he found the original and complete article from Kyodo News that is cited above about the declaration of workers about the reality of subcontractors on the site.

I post it here also:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82005.html

FOCUS: Subcontractor questions safety management at Fukushima nuclear plant
TOKYO, March 30, Kyodo

A worker who engaged in efforts to regain control of the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has questioned safety precautions taken by the operator for workers, citing, for instance, a lack of supervision of radiation monitoring when three workers were exposed to high levels of radiation last week.

In a recent interview with Kyodo News, the man, hired by a sub-subcontractor of plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., expressed surprise about the three workers who were working with their feet submerged in contaminated water, saying, ''We don't normally work in water.''==Kyodo

Evo

Apr1-11, 10:10 AM

We already have a thread on this in Politics and World affairs.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480017

rasherz

Apr1-11, 11:58 AM

For those of us living in Japan, this thread is invaluable, thank you. There's so much hype on one side and so much down play by people in the nuclear industry (not all of them), that we really don't know what to think any more. Sorry Evo, but I think this needs a dedicated thread, considering what's happening. Can everyone please try to keep scare-mongering to a minimum and stick to facts though? I understand this is a scientific forum, but things are a little corporate and political right now too.

GUS

Apr3-11, 09:49 AM

This is a request for help from Mayor of Minami Soma City:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ZHQ--cK40&feature=player_embedded

Personally , despite the fact that radiation isnt off the scale in the city yet, I find it unbelievable the government isnt helping them especially after the IEAAs recent report that radiation levels were at unsafe levels over 40 km away from Fukishima and this city is only 20km away.
The sense is very much is that the Japanese government is in denial of the figures, refuses to enlarge the evacuation zone (to save face ????????) or acknowledge the extent of the problem and has basically abandoned these people . Extrodinary behaviour and possibly illegal ?

rasherz

Apr4-11, 10:04 AM

jlduh

Apr26-11, 01:51 AM

NHK is revaaling this info that none at the government knew of any risk of hydrogen explosions at the reactors buildings before it happened at n°1 (should be a good political subject to revive this specific thread and post other political subjects!):

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_10.html

Hosono said he was not aware of a single nuclear expert who warned of the risk of a hydrogen blast following the venting operation. He said nitrogen inside the reactor container was supposed to prevent such explosions.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company also told reporters that hydrogen is supposed to be processed within the containment vessel, and that such an explosion is not assumed in a reactor building.

That's a very strange statement to say the least...

AntonL

Apr26-11, 03:19 AM

NHK is revaaling this info that none at the government knew of any risk of hydrogen explosions at the reactors buildings before it happened at n°1 (should be a good political subject to revive this specific thread and post other political subjects!):

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_10.html
Hosono said he was not aware of a single nuclear expert who warned of the risk of a hydrogen blast following the venting operation. He said nitrogen inside the reactor container was supposed to prevent such explosions.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company also told reporters that hydrogen is supposed to be processed within the containment vessel, and that such an explosion is not assumed in a reactor building.

That's a very strange statement to say the least...

Not so strange they are just defending themselves against russian nuclear scientist allegations that the disaster was predictable

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/04/25/20110425p2a00m0na023000c.html

Danuta

Apr26-11, 02:23 PM

Meh. More disillusion with the industry.

In Japan’s Nuclear Nexus, Safety Is Left Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html

sp2

Apr26-11, 08:23 PM

Meh. More disillusion with the industry.

In Japan’s Nuclear Nexus, Safety Is Left Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html

I was about to post that story, but you beat me to it.

I posted, a couple of weeks back, to the effect that the Japanese regulators were obviously in the pocket of the Japanese utilities, and that the people of Japan --not to mention the rest of the world-- were paying an awful price for that sickening corruption.

Moderator Borek deleted my post, as he thought it was out of line.

I don't know how anybody who reads this story (really, anybody who reads, *period*) could possibly disagree with that assessment.

This is the price of 'Regulatory Capture.'

Ugly.

Danuta

Apr26-11, 08:43 PM

sp2, I had a post deleted today by someone also. I'll have to chalk it up to the one line I wrote being out of line.

Corruption, it is everywhere.

edit: oops, my last new line reads iffy. I mean that about the TEPCO fiasco.

MiceAndMen

Apr26-11, 10:27 PM

New article up at the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html?_r=1&hpw=&pagewanted=all

Collusion flows the other way, too, in a lesser-known practice known as amaagari, or ascent to heaven. Because the regulatory panels meant to backstop the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency lack full-time technical experts, they depend largely on retired or active engineers from nuclear-industry-related companies. They are unlikely to criticize the companies that employ them.

More and more reports are surfacing now about the level of corruption surrounding Japan's nuclear industry. They have a lot to hide.

Danuta

Apr26-11, 10:42 PM

New article up at the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html?_r=1&hpw=&pagewanted=all

More and more reports are surfacing now about the level of corruption surrounding Japan's nuclear industry. They have a lot to hide.

I think it's the same article I posted a couple of posts before yours. No matter, the more, the scarier. Yes, they certainly do have a lot to hide. I'm sure this article just skims the surface too.

jlduh

Apr27-11, 04:28 AM

Danuta

Apr27-11, 09:30 AM

Just discovered that an other nuclear plant in Japan is severely critized by some seismology specialists, the Hamaoka plant with now 5 BWR reactors (the 5th is from 2005), which is right at the spot above a big seismic weakness:

http://www.stop-hamaoka.com/english/Mogisan.html

Hanaoka's definitely been in the headlines now and then. A lot more now though. I think it's far from being fortified against something like the 9.5-9.6 magnitude "Ring of Fire" quake that rocked Chile in 1960.

Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant must be shut down
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110418p2a00m0na007000c.html

Danuta

Apr27-11, 10:27 AM

Not so strange they are just defending themselves against russian nuclear scientist allegations that the disaster was predictable

What does that Russian nuclear scientist know anyway, eh? It was all due to Stuxnet! <high sarcasm on>

Interesting what TEPCO engineers can come up with.

"The former editor of the Japan Times - Yoichi Shimatsu - writes:

Tepco engineers suggested that the electric power inside the plant was knocked out by something other than the tsunami. I have pointed to this possibility early on, that the quake and control disruptions could have made the control computers vulnerable to the Stuxnet virus."

AntonL

Apr27-11, 10:54 AM

Tepco engineers suggested that the electric power inside the plant was knocked out by something other than the tsunami. I have pointed to this possibility early on, that the quake and control disruptions could have made the control computers vulnerable to the Stuxnet virus."[/I] You can forget Stuxnet at Fukushima, the plant was build pre-digital controllers and if they had digital controllers they would not be from Siemens which were the ones being compromised

Danuta

Apr27-11, 11:01 AM

You can forget Stuxnet at Fukushima, the plant was build pre-digital controllers and if they had digital controllers they would not be from Siemens which were the ones being compromised

Yup, in the heat of the catastrophe the engineers forgot their controllers weren't Seimens made. Chalk it up to another mixup.

Dmytry

Apr27-11, 11:06 AM

Danuta

Apr27-11, 11:54 AM

Stuxnet was extremely irresponsible thing. The dumb thing just wrecks any control software that resembles the iranian plant, with the margin of uncertainty. Old plants may be safer, but keep in mind that the control software gets modernized.

They upgraded their equipment and controllers throughout the years, that's quite certain. But the fact that they tried to use Stuxnet as an excuse is laughable considering the obvious quake and tsunami. They tried... anyway.

Agreed Stuxnet is irresponsible and malicious in the extreme.

Dmytry

Apr27-11, 11:58 AM

They upgraded their equipment and controllers throughout the years, that's quite certain. But the fact that they tried to use Stuxnet as an excuse is laughable considering the obvious quake and tsunami. They tried... anyway.

Yea, that's laughable. It'd just take down some random plant during operation. Could just as well be a chemical plant.

Agreed Stuxnet is irresponsible and malicious in the extreme.
Yep. But everyone has to be prepared for such crap now. Software really needs to be very secure. Being off internet is not enough. There's thumbdrives. You guys would believe that autorun would be disabled, but everyone had been persistently finding all sorts of worms on critical systems, worms getting there through autorun of flash drives. It reads like bad science fiction. Insert a drive into computer, and computer gets infected.

Danuta

Apr27-11, 12:08 PM

Yep. But everyone has to be prepared for such crap now. Software really needs to be very secure. Being off internet is not enough. There's thumbdrives. You guys would believe that autorun would be disabled, but everyone had been persistently finding all sorts of worms on critical systems, worms getting there through autorun of flash drives. It reads like bad science fiction. Insert a drive into computer, and computer gets infected.

Worms in autorun of flashdrives...can get into unprotected networks...get passwords.
Another type of breach to worry about.

Do SCADA systems run all pnuematics in these old plants? I think not. Probably some of the upgrades done over the years do not even include USB connections. Some emergency procedure can be done manually, regardless.

jlduh

Apr28-11, 04:27 AM

An other interesting article showing how nuclear accidents, with their specificities, imply very specific social problems which are essentially the results of two factors: radiaoctivity is invisible and has mainly long term effects, and the access to the infos is always difficult (by nature of the radioactivity domain, and also because a lot of confusion is often induced by less than clear autorities decisions/experts).

http://japanfocus.org/-Makiko-Segawa/3516

This can be true also for some other industrial accidents involving chemical products for example (like Bhopal) but very often effects are much quicker and visible. There is a specificity of the radioactivity accidents, and as all technologies used in societies, the global view also has to include the social dimension...

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 06:12 AM

Some gem I found at NRC, the probability of loss of coolant in spent fuel pool, see :
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/082r3.html
3 scenarios were analysed, with frequencies of:
one in 45 000 000 years, one in 13 000 000 years, one in 714 000 years
The combined frequency was then used for the cost/benefit analysis of the hypothetical $1M/reactor solution that would improve safety of spent fuel pools, with the result:
"Because of the large inherent safety margins in the design and construction of spent fuel pools, this issue was RESOLVED and no new requirements were established."

[the article was "Page Last Reviewed/Updated Sunday, March 13, 2011" by the way]

I don't really know what to comment on this. It is truly amazing how they had not neglected even the one in 45 and 13 million years scenarios, and I am in awe of the ultra low margin of error and ultra high confidence values those guys have for the geophysics and material science. I am also in awe how some person (or a group of people) can be so confident, and assume such a low (0) probability that they missed a couple 1/10 000 year or so events that never happened in the recorded history.

jlduh

Apr28-11, 06:30 AM

To Dmytry:

This extract is very informative of the scenario that we can see appearing at any of the Fukushima pool if the situation deteriorates on any of the reactor and the level of water goes to zero in the spent pool. And this risk is going to last for a very long time as i don't see know how to secure this scenario to happen, based on the more than fragile (but in fact we may say lucky after all!) situation in which the Fukushima plant is now:

If the pool were to be drained of water, the discharged fuel from the previous two refuelings would still be "fresh" enough to melt under decay heat. However, the zircaloy cladding of this fuel could be ignited during the heatup.543 The resulting fire, in a pool equipped with high density storage racks, would probably spread to most or all of the fuel in the pool. The heat of combustion, in combination with decay heat, would certainly release considerable gap activity from the fuel and would probably drive "borderline aged" fuel into a molten condition. Moreover, if the fire becomes oxygen-starved (quite probable for a fire located in the bottom of a pit such as this), the hot zirconium would rob oxygen from the uranium dioxide fuel, forming a liquid mixture of metallic uranium, zirconium, oxidized zirconium, and dissolved uranium dioxide. This would cause a release of fission products from the fuel matrix quite comparable to that of molten fuel.545 In addition, although confined, spent fuel pools are almost always located outside of the primary containment. Thus, release to the atmosphere is more likely than for comparable accidents involving the reactor core.

Clearly it is recognized that the fact that there is no real strategy in place other than storing spent fuel has created the conditions for reevaluating the risks with SFP, because of increased volume of spent fuel and BECAUSE OF RERACKING... They reevaluated it but to do nothing because the probability was considered insignificant, after a very brilliant calculation. Obviously, big explosions as consequences of reactor damages that could deteriorate integrity of the pool, of even explode it completely and send in the air all its content were not part of the probabilities which end up terribly low -who would fear this so small risk? (really, didn't we go very close to this on reactor 3 when you see the force of the explosions ans the amount of destructions, same thing at reactor 4...).

I also like this sentence:

Ultimately, makeup to the pool could be supplied by bringing in a fire hose (60 gpm would suffice). Although one would expect that the failure probability associated with bringing in a hose (over a period of four or more days) would be very low, it must also be remembered that working next to 385,000 gallons of potentially contaminated boiling water on top of a 10-story building is not a trivial problem. We will assume, based purely on judgment, that the conditional failure probability for this method of makeup is on the order of 5%. When these probabilities are combined, the result is a frequency of 1.4 x 10-6/RY for an accident initiated by loss of spent fuel pool cooling.

Well at least they envisionned the difficulty if it could happen. But finally considered the probability to happen insignificant. Period.

I'm very surprised to see how risks assessment can be done without really taking into account domino effects. The only serious explosion that could destroy the pool is the one of a tornado missile... Well, well.

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 06:37 AM

Guest Member

Apr28-11, 06:39 AM

Speaking of the NRC and political BS-

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for information from the Associated Press (AP) on March 16.

The AP is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. AP serves 1,700 newspapers and 5,000 radio and television outlets in the United States as well as newspaper, radio and television subscribers internationally.

The AP sent 3 requests:
1. access to and copies of all communications between the NRC, the Department of Energy, GE Energy and Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami.
2. access to and copies of all
internal communications within the NRC (including its chairman, four commissioners and their staff
members) pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami.
3. access to and copies of all communications between the NRC and government counterparts in Japan pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

The statute requires that NRC respond within 20 business days to the request. In unusaul circumstances, the NRC could extend that time by an additional 10 business days to give themselves time to collect the information requested.

Yesterday was business day 30, which should have meant that even with the 10 day extension, NRC should have provided all the information ro AP. But they didn't.

All of those newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations that depend on AP for their news are not able to provide accurate information until the NRC releases the info. Right now, NRC is in violation of the statute for not complying with the 30 day maximum law.

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 06:54 AM

One in 700 000 years (posted the link before, so it is sourced as per thread rules). What sort of culture one must have to declare such a number...
Let's say, I am 'fearful' enough to think that there is >=1/10 possibility there is yet unknown 1/10 000 years event or mechanism. That gives risk of 1/100 000 years or worse.
Let's suppose that I am 'paranoid' enough to think there is a >=1/100 probability of management failure / corruption, leading to neglect of 1 in 100 years event (what seem to have happened in Japan). That is 1/10 000 years or worse. It seems that not even very slight doubt in the completeness of our knowledge, or a slight mistrust, is compatible with such figure as one in 700 000 years.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 08:28 AM

In the technical thread:

recently, some type of media scrubbing of any negative reporting...This Forum should be getting an email any day now.

Somebody want to provide a link that gives evidence for this assertion?
Did this come from some press conference or something?

http://japanfocus.org/-Makiko-Segawa/3516

Thank you.

From the link above:

Now the Japanese government has moved to crack down on independent reportage and criticism of the government’s policies in the wake of the disaster by deciding what citizens may or may not talk about in public. A new project team has been created by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, the National Police Agency, and METI to combat “rumors” deemed harmful to Japanese security in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

The government charges that the damage caused by earthquakes and by the nuclear accident are being magnified by irresponsible rumors, and the government must take action for the sake of the public good. The project team has begun to send “letters of request” to such organizations as telephone companies, internet providers, cable television stations, and others, demanding that they “take adequate measures based on the guidelines in response to illegal information. ”The measures include erasing any information from internet sites that the authorities deem harmful to public order and morality.

Here is the "letter of request": http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-news/01kiban08_01000023.html

This looks rather toothless to me, and doesn't look like it amounts to more than a "Let's get it together folks" plea. Also not clear that anybody has taken it seriously. Anybody know of anyone who has actually been silenced by this?

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 08:36 AM

Here is the "letter of request": http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-news/01kiban08_01000023.html

This looks rather toothless to me, and doesn't look like it amounts to more than a "Let's get it together folks" plea. Also not clear that anybody has taken it seriously. Anybody know of anyone who has actually been silenced by this?
dunno, I'd prefer if they rather demanded (in toothfull, not toothless way) that shelters and medical institutions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8416302/Japan-nuclear-crisis-evacuees-turned-away-from-shelters.html) do not turn away refugees, as well as provided accurate information on the nature of radioactive dirt and the procedures for getting the dirt off (aka, shower).
It seems conceivable for me, given the strongly non-uniform distribution of the radioactive dirt, that some refugees may have beta-active dirt on their skin, which would make Geiger counter show very scary dose rate (due to Geiger counter's much higher sensitivity to beta), and which can also lead to dermatitis (due to high localized doses). Instead of trying to quell the opposition, the government must explain the situation. But they claim there are no immediate effects whatsoever. Which may not be true, as small highly active particles on the skin can give beta rash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn#Beta_burns
even if the average dose is small. That was the case in Chernobyl aftermatch. (ignore the 'after the blast' stuff there, it's for nuclear weapons not for nuclear power plants, different isotope ratios)
Furthermore, beta particles are particularly dangerous to the eye lens. The point is, there is a definite potential for localized acute effects at low 'average' doses, and denying it is highly counter productive and causes the fear if the localized acute effects are first identified by the public before official statement is made.
The 'dirt' nature of contamination (as opposed to 'contagion') must be explained.
Public doses can be decreased a lot if public is informed to wash off the dirt, as well as the nature of radioactivity would be de-mystified and the act of washing would have positive placebo effect. The doses are very dependent to what you're doing.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 08:53 AM

dunno, I'd prefer if they rather demanded (in toothfull, not toothless way) that shelters and medical institutions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8416302/Japan-nuclear-crisis-evacuees-turned-away-from-shelters.html) do not turn away refugees,

Do you watch the news in Japan? That kind of despicable stuff is covered prominently, and strongly condemned.

Can't say I have seen an in-depth discussion of beta burns in particular, but practical advice abounds. Authorities, experts and newscasters are not just saying, "Don't worry! Everything is under control!"

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 08:56 AM

Do you watch the news in Japan? That kind of unfortunate stuff is covered prominently, and strongly condemned.

How strongly? It should be illegal. It's like a black walks into the store and he gets told "go away *****", not only that's strongly condemned, that may cost you license I think, right?
I don't understand Japanese.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 09:15 AM

How strongly? It should be illegal. It's like a black walks into the store and he gets told "go away *****", not only that's strongly condemned, that may cost you license I think, right?

Don't think it is actually illegal, but public shaming is a pretty powerful force.

I don't understand Japanese.

NHK has English-language broadcasts.

|Fred

Apr28-11, 09:17 AM

Do you watch the news in Japan?

That's kind of the main issue imo:
I remember it was in the first few days, this french guy on youtube screaming that they were all going to die and that Japanese TV was still airing situation comedy.. And I was like why doesn't he switch to TBS or NHK.. They had 247 coverage , explaining Sievers and dangerosity days if not weeks before anything remotely similar was done in Europe. Meanwhile people oversea believe that radiation in Toyko was almost Chernobyl like..

I could watch on TV so called expert explaining how Japanese were resigned and abbey what they were told... And I knew for a fact that was complete B.S , any one following tepco press conference, could witness how hard the press questioning Tepco , doubting what they are saying etc.. And while we were still pondering the fact that the Japanese did not extend the evac zone, understating that the Jap gov was not doing what it should..
Any one having a proper look, could have told you that 1) concerned people were evacuating if they could even if they were not if the evac zone ( I say if they could because they was no gaz, road were a mess at the time)
2) some people refused to evac or went back 3)looting was taking place in the evac zone .

So much for doing what they are told...

My understanding is that a lot of our own fear is projected on this Japanese crisis, not necessary a bad thing but when it reach the point where it no longer have anything to do with the actual reality ... it's just weird...

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 09:19 AM

NHK has English-language broadcasts.
ahh... well I'll leave coverage of it to someone else and shut up and focus on technical stuff. I'm at the moment more interested in reading various NRC stuff. It's not very easy for me to pick up translator's english there from audio.

I recall NHK translator had the idea of radioactive contagion, when explaining closure of the zone, but i dont sure in what thread it was sourced in.

edit: BTW did they actually explain how much the dose varies from place to place within few meters? With demonstration using a counter. Showing that it is literally, radioactive dirt.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 09:39 AM

That's kind of the main issue imo:
I remember it was in the first few days, this french guy on youtube screaming that they were all going to die and that Japanese TV was still airing situation comedy..

Where did he find situation comedy? As far as I remember, the first ten days after the earthquake there was nothing but 24 hour news on all channels, and the next ten was half news, half "inspirational" stuff (sentimental song shows, etc.). Nothing like normal comedy reappeared until something like April.

And I was like why doesn't he switch to TBS or NHK.. They had 247 coverage , explaining Sievers and dangerosity days if not weeks before anything remotely similar was done in Europe. Meanwhile people oversea believe that radiation in Toyko was almost Chernobyl like..

I think we got better information here in Japan early on than folks overseas did, judging from the ridiculous stuff that got forwarded by overseas friends at the time, with the notation that "we fear you are not getting true information there"...

I could watch on TV so called expert explaining how Japanese were resigned and abbey what they were told... And I knew for a fact that was complete B.S , any one following tepco press conference, could witness how hard the press questioning Tepco , doubting what they are saying etc..

Yes.

jlduh

Apr28-11, 09:40 AM

Well, i think it's important to recall that even if gamma radiation emission is with reason considered as the most dangerous because it is much more difficult to contain, so it acts at a much bigger distance, the alpha and beta emitters can also be very dangerous as long as they are inhaled or ingested, because in this case their lower distance of "radioactive action" is no more a protection against the effects.

Saying an alpha emitter can be stopped by a sheet of paper, or beta by an aluminium one of a few mm, DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE HARMLESS (and sometimes if find this straightforward presentation a little bit oversimplistic to say the least)...

The particles are dangerous depending also, at the end, where they will stay inside the body (internal contamination)

http://www.furryelephant.com/content/radioactivity/alpha-beta-gamma-radiation/
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/pathways.html
http://www.furryelephant.com/content/radioactivity/nuclear-radiation-health-effects/

Focusing on gamma means focusing on external exposures (and especially indirect ones). But there is also internal exposure!

The third pathway of concern is direct or external exposure from radioactive material. The concern about exposure to different kinds of radiation varies:
Limited concern about alpha particles. They cannot penetrate the outer layer of skin, but if you have any open wounds you may be at risk.
Greater concern about beta particles. They can burn the skin in some cases, or damage eyes.
Greatest concern is about gamma radiation. Different radionuclides emit gamma rays of different strength, but gamma rays can travel long distances and penetrate entirely through the body.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 09:49 AM

I recall NHK translator had the idea of radioactive contagion, when explaining closure of the zone, but i dont sure in what thread it was sourced in.

That wasn't the NHK translator. That was the METI interpreter, who did not seem to be a native English speaker. If I were to criticize that, I would say:

1) Always use a native speaker of the target language for translation, if you care about the nuances.

2) Why did the Times not have anyone on payroll who is competent at Japanese, so that they could attend regular press conferences? Why are they sending a reporter who apparently cannot handle Japanese to cover events in Japan? It is only 6-7 weeks into an ongoing story, after all... The Times is not some tiny backwater operation -- presumably they should have some sort of professional standards, and a budget to back them up.

If you can't have been bothered to learn the language in which events are transpiring, or hire someone who does know it, then expect to receive incomplete, late, and possibly heavily filtered information.

edit: BTW did they actually explain how much the dose varies from place to place within few meters? With demonstration using a counter. Showing that it is literally, radioactive dirt.

You mean that youtube video? Haven't seen that on the news, but have seen reports that a team of academics is planning to do detailed measurements of place-to-place dose rates over a wide area including the evacuation zone.

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 09:52 AM

You mean that youtube video? Haven't seen that on the news, but have seen reports that a team of academics is planning to do detailed measurements of place-to-place dose rates over a wide area including the evacuation zone.
no, not that specific youtube video, just anyone with a counter can do this really, showing hands-on how contamination works. Perhaps even touching that on skin and getting dirty, then washing hands off. Warning of the danger of ingestion and inhalation. Can be done outside restricted zone easily...
If they did not do that yet - your coverage is total crap, sorry.
edit: To clarify. I'm not saying that coverage here is any better or anything, judging it absolutely, not relatively.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 10:01 AM

no, not that specific youtube video, just anyone with a counter can do this really, showing hands-on how contamination works. Perhaps even touching that on skin and getting dirty, then washing hands off. Warning of the danger of ingestion and inhalation. Can be done outside restricted zone easily...
If they did not do that yet - your coverage is total crap, sorry.
edit: To clarify. I'm not saying that coverage here is any better or anything, judging it absolutely, not relatively.

Yes, that kind of stuff has been covered. Take off shoes, wear a mask, wash hands, even gargling may help... Not the exact script you suggest with a counter, but the basics have been covered.

As I would expect they would be where you are (Lithuania?) in similar circumstances.

PietKuip

Apr28-11, 10:18 AM

That wasn't the NHK translator. That was the METI interpreter, who did not seem to be a native English speaker. If I were to criticize that, I would say:

1) Always use a native speaker of the target language for translation, if you care about the nuances.

2) Why did the Times not have anyone on payroll who is competent at Japanese, so that they could attend regular press conferences? Why are they sending a reporter who apparently cannot handle Japanese to cover events in Japan? It is only 6-7 weeks into an ongoing story, after all... The Times is not some tiny backwater operation -- presumably they should have some sort of professional standards, and a budget to back them up.

If you can't have been bothered to learn the language in which events are transpiring, or hire someone who does know it, then expect to receive incomplete, late, and possibly heavily filtered information.
Unreasonable demands. It is probably more important that these events get covered by a journalist specializing in science & technology or environmental issues than by a scholar specializing in east-asian history and literature.

The interpreter said (in a video that is not online anymore):

"... individuals who would enter these areas because if they come out of these regions the radiation contamination of these individuals may affect other people outside of this area. Therefor such a decision had been made."

If that was false there is a problem with the competence of the interpreters that METI employs.

Danuta

Apr28-11, 10:59 AM

Unreasonable demands. It is probably more important that these events get covered by a journalist specializing in science & technology or environmental issues than by a scholar specializing in east-asian history and literature.

The interpreter said (in a video that is not online anymore):

"... individuals who would enter these areas because if they come out of these regions the radiation contamination of these individuals may affect other people outside of this area. Therefor such a decision had been made."

If that was false there is a problem with the competence of the interpreters that METI employs.

In light of the article below, I doubt it is a problem with interpreter competence. More like a problem with the lack of proper radiological information dissemination. They've had since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to dispel "hibakusha" discrimination yet it still persists. But one also has to take into consideration the ingrained Japanese way of uninflicting one's problems/situation on the well being of others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376379/Girl-8-tsunami-victims-denied-help-fears-spread-radiation-survivors.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 11:28 AM

Yes, that kind of stuff has been covered. Take off shoes, wear a mask, wash hands, even gargling may help... Not the exact script you suggest with a counter, but the basics have been covered.

That does not address how radiation works... only 'what to do', without good explanation why and does not give a mental model.

As I would expect they would be where you are (Lithuania?) in similar circumstances.
I *hope* they'd have someone walk with counter show off how radiation works in less abstract way, in addition to telling what to do. In Lithuania, we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrius_Kubilius
In Germany, Angela Merkel.
We have scientists among top politicians, you see. We can have politician go there and do some science. I don't know how it is outside EU. edit: I mean, I know that in EU a politician with scientific background can go on site and measure something, cheap PR stunt it may be but it is a lot better than eating a tomato from the affected region. Plus said politician can't be easily bullshitted.

edit: also by now I would expect someone to set up high volume manufacturing of low cost personal dosimeters? I don't sure how quickly it was set up after Chernobyl. I think it did take very little time back then, using the military factories and the stockpile from the cold war. Owning a dosimeter really gives comfort in such situation. Keep in mind that during cold war, citizens of both sides were educated about radiation. Also, radiation and radioactivity was part of training during compulsory military service I believe. That is not to advocate the cold war - it was really terrible state of affairs - but to explain the difference.

jlduh

Apr28-11, 12:16 PM

The problem of the social acceptance of a technology is not 100% determined by pure scientific reasoning and perfect objective knowledge shared by 100% of the population. That's what a lot of scientifics and engineers fail to understand (either, they cannot understand it, or they do not want to understand it).

A society is, whatever you may think about it, much more complex and irrational than you would like to see it. And even the scientifics are part of this irrationality of course (history of sciences show the long erratic way through scientific beliefs, and history is not finished!). Sorry this is a french book (i don't think it has been translated in english) but it's a must read to understand how excellent rational people with great rational procedures can end up with silly tragedies -most of the examples are about planes and boats accidents, but there could be a neat addendum with nuclear ones i think:

http://www.amazon.fr/d%C3%A9cisions-absurdes-Sociologie-radicales-persistantes/dp/2070315428

(In english, the title would be: "Silly decisions: Sociology of radical and persisting mistakes". This would be at least a good read to those who are not inclined to inject enough doubt in their conceptions based on excessive rational thinking...).

So yes, a society is, whatever you may think about it, much more complex and irrational than you would like to see it. I'm not judging if it's good or bad (some can always say that obscurantism or misbelief in the society have to be fighted against until clear thuth appears!), I'm just saying IT'S LIKE THAT!

Moreover, if we talk about nuclear stuff, there are increasing factors for this tendency:

1) this is a complex area of science and technology. Just look at the number of units used for measuring it and you can have a good view of what i mean.

2) it's totally invisible but it can kill or harm you (ok, like bacterias or viruses you could say? Yes but bacterias were not socially developped, at first, by humans as weapons! )

3) and this is maybe the most important, the after war history that people have in mind is mainly related to military applications with bombs, weapons, the cold war, and so on. Even civil nuclear programs have all been initiated and managed as and by military approches (and culture of secrecy, by consequence). This is not an accusation, this is a fact. And this fact explains a lot of what people think and fear about, and that's understandable based on this history. It is funny by the way to observe that in the very first years of atomic research (after Marie Curie, etc.), radioactivity was seen by a good part of the society as a great magical phenomenon, with great health benefits even with direct exposure to radiations (yes, see all the stuff that was sold like baths with radiums sources, and so on, to get better health!

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/radbath.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium (historical uses)
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/revig.htm

The point is that even if there was lack of knowledge at first on the health effects of radiations, the society was not by nature threaten by this new nuclear domain as these examples show. This hugely changed after the WWII of course. Civil nuclear was just the phase which came after big military use -first at Nagasaki and Hiroshima of course- , and in direct relation with that (Pu was needed to make the bombs in large quantities and Pu is a by product of nuclear fission in reactors, so that was a good opportunity to build reactors, and even the first reason at this time!)...

So here it is, nuclear is still associated (with rational reasons, and sometimes also with irrational ones like this hibakusha phenomenon) to danger, secrecy of weapons, and fear. And that's not surprising in my opinion, based on psychology, sociology, and history.

jlduh

Apr28-11, 01:01 PM

about the Hamaoka restart and reassessment of risks related to earthquake:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_39.html

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_39.html

Danuta

Apr28-11, 01:07 PM

Unbelievable. Restart in July folks.

"The Hamaoka plant, 200 kilometres (120 miles) southwest of Tokyo, sits near an active earthquake zone that the government has forecast carries an 87 percent chance of producing a magnitude-8 or stronger earthquake in the next 30 years."

"With regard to tsunami countermeasures for their nuclear plant, they have done virtually nothing."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/chubu-electric-idUSL3E7FS3IS20110428

rowmag

Apr28-11, 05:57 PM

That wasn't the NHK translator. That was the METI interpreter, who did not seem to be a native English speaker. If I were to criticize that, I would say:

1) Always use a native speaker of the target language for translation, if you care about the nuances.

2) Why did the Times not have anyone on payroll who is competent at Japanese, so that they could attend regular press conferences? Why are they sending a reporter who apparently cannot handle Japanese to cover events in Japan? It is only 6-7 weeks into an ongoing story, after all... The Times is not some tiny backwater operation -- presumably they should have some sort of professional standards, and a budget to back them up.

If you can't have been bothered to learn the language in which events are transpiring, or hire someone who does know it, then expect to receive incomplete, late, and possibly heavily filtered information.

Unreasonable demands. It is probably more important that these events get covered by a journalist specializing in science & technology or environmental issues than by a scholar specializing in east-asian history and literature.

Unreasonable? For a global news organization?

And why do you assume the only bilingual people are history and literature specialists?

But in any case, I think the main area of importance (besides language ability, but that should be a precondition) is some intelligence and ability to learn quick. There are not that many nuclear power experts in the world, and news media would use such experts for in-depth analysis interviews, not for covering press conferences.

The interpreter said (in a video that is not online anymore):

"... individuals who would enter these areas because if they come out of these regions the radiation contamination of these individuals may affect other people outside of this area. Therefor such a decision had been made."

If that was false there is a problem with the competence of the interpreters that METI employs.

Which was my point number 1).

(And I gave you the exact wording that was used in Japanese in the other thread, to show how problematic the translation was.)

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 06:44 PM

Well if the news didn't even teach their own translator that it doesn't spread like infectious disease, how are they to teach the public?

If there is some linguistic issue - e.g. if they are using the word commonly used for infectious diseases to describe radiation sickness or cancer - then translator would have a lot of advantage over people who don't speak English.

Also, I do not think it is at all unreasonable demand for a developed country's media to be able to find someone who understands radiation, and to have that person show how it works with the counter. Get his hand slightly contaminated, wash it, etc. A propaganda trick it may be but it is better than nothing. Reuse the 'dirt' intuition.
Really, anyone with physics degree should know it. Is Japanese scientific education system much behind? I know Japanese did quite a bit of theoretical physics, e.g. i know of Yukawa. I don't particularly like Michio Kaku but he isn't stupid either and he's quite common on TV in US.

rowmag

Apr28-11, 07:07 PM

Well if the news didn't even teach their own translator that it doesn't spread like infectious disease, how are they to teach the public?

The translator is not talking to the (Japanese-speaking) public, she was speaking to foreign journalists. Yes, she did not seem to have been chosen for her scientific intuition, but things like that will happen, and perhaps corrected later if caught. As I said, her job is a very difficult one, working on the fly like that.

If there is some linguistic issue - e.g. if they are using the word commonly used for infectious diseases to describe radiation sickness or cancer - then translator would have a lot of advantage over people who don't speak English.

As I told you before, the word "contamination" was not used in the Japanese original statement.

Also, I do not think it is at all unreasonable demand for a developed country's media to be able to find someone who understands radiation, and to have that person show how it works with the counter. Get his hand slightly contaminated, wash it, etc. A propaganda trick it may be but it is better than nothing. Reuse the 'dirt' intuition.
Really, anyone with physics degree should know it. Is Japanese scientific education system much behind? I know Japanese did quite a bit of theoretical physics, e.g. i know of Yukawa.

As I explained, there has been a parade of physicists on the news programs, explaining various details of what radiation is and what to do about it.

If you don't like that they didn't use your particular visual gimmick (and for that matter, perhaps someone did -- I can't watch all the news shows simultaneously), then perhaps you could volunteer your services as presentation consultant.

I don't particularly like Michio Kaku but he isn't stupid either and he's quite common on TV in US.

Minor point of correction: Michio Kaku is not Japanese.

Dmytry

Apr28-11, 07:16 PM

What ever. The point is that if not even the translator who's constantly having to listen to the news learns it, then, the public probably won't learn it either. Public is not chosen for scientific intuition either.

Weren't you surprised how non-uniform it is? That youtube video. How it can differ so much within single yard.

jlduh

Apr29-11, 03:25 AM

India rejects the authorization for the building of new reactors after the accidents in Japan

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/29_06.html

Recently there has been a lot of protests against the contsruction of new nuclear plants in India (with the project of the biggest one in the world with 10 000 Mwatts).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8547436.stm

And even more recently, the police killed one person and 50 persons were injured during riots after a new protest against this plant:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13124773

Danuta

Apr29-11, 10:41 AM

Sorry for the between posts interruption of thought here but I'm sure this GE tidbit will get nuked on the other thread so I'll deposit it here too if nobody minds. "Use of Weapons"----thanks for the ZH mention, dude!

Well, i can confirm that here in France, the medias have completely left this subject out. They just mentioned the 25 Anniversary of the Thernobyl accident and of course the various events and protests in relation with this. But Fukushima has disappeared from their scope. I guess they would probably show some images if some new explosions were happening. As i said in other places, radioactivity is invisible and complex, so this is not good for medias audiences...

More surprising the french IRSN has completely stopped (since almost one month) to report what is going on at Fukushima, except in a weekly basis but more for the french citizens leaving in Japan. So basically difficult, outside of this forum (and because we all now have recorded the links to where to go to compile infos) to follow what is going on there...
Maybe this explains it.

Media assets owned by GE(General Electric). (they own a lot more stuff unrelated to media too) What about AREVA? (wouldn't want their uranium mining shares to tank) Hitachi? Not to worry, the royal wedding will get coverage.

It's interesting observing the effect(no media coverage) but one really has to look at the cause. Or causes.

NBCUniversal (49% ownership)
NBC - National Broadcasting Company
NBC Network Television stations
WNBC 4 - New York
KNBC 4 - Los Angeles
WMAQ 5 - Chicago
WCAU 10 - Philadelphia
KNTV 11 - San Jose/San Francisco
KXAS 5 - Dallas/Fort Worth²
WRC 4 - Washington
WTVJ 6 - Miami
KNSD 39 (cable 7) - San Diego²
WVIT 30 - Hartford
NBC Entertainment
NBC News
NBC Sports
NBC Studios
NBCUniversal Sports & Olympics
NBCUniversal Television Group
Universal Media Studios
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal International Television
EMKA, Ltd.
NBC Universal Digital Media
NBC Universal Cable
A&E Television Networks (co-owned with The Hearst Corporation and Disney/ABC):
A&E
The Biography Channel
Crime & Investigation Network
The History Channel
The History Channel en Español
History Channel International
Lifetime
Military History Channel
Bravo
Chiller (horror-themed cable channel, launched March 1, 2007) [1]
CNBC
CNBC World
MSNBC (co-owned with Microsoft)
NBC WeatherPlus
mun2
SyFy
ShopNBC
Sleuth
USA Network
Universal HD
The Weather Channel
WeatherPlus
NBCUniversal Global Networks
NBCUniversal Global Networks
LAPTV (Latin America) - co-owned with Paramount Pictures (Viacom), MGM and 20th Century Fox (News Corporation);
Telecine (Brazil) - co-owned with Globosat Canais, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, MGM and 20th Century Fox;
Universal Channel Latin America (except Brazil
Universal Channel Brazil (co-owned with Globosat Canais);
Sci Fi Channel (Latin America)
NBCUniversal Global Networks España.
Telemundo
KVEA/KWHY - Los Angeles
WNJU - New York
WSCV - Miami
KTMD - Houston
WSNS - Chicago
KXTX - Dallas/Fort Worth
KVDA - San Antonio
KSTS - San Jose/San Francisco
KTAZ - Phoenix
KBLR - Las Vegas
KNSO - Fresno
KDEN - Longmont, Colorado
WNEU - Boston/Merrimack
KHRR - Tucson
WKAQ - Puerto Rico
Universal Studios (co-owned with Vivendi)
Universal Pictures
Focus Features
Rogue
Working Title Films
Universal Studios Licensing
Universal Animation Studios
Universal Interactive
Universal Pictures International
Universal Studios Home Entertainment
Universal Home Entertainment Productions
United International Pictures (co-owned with Paramount Pictures/Viacom);
Universal Operations Group
Universal Production Studios
Universal Parks & Resorts
qubo - Qubo Venture,LLC¹
¹Minority interest
²Stations which LIN Television owns a minority interest (24%) in

Guest Member

Apr29-11, 11:04 AM

Sorry for the between posts interruption of thought here but I'm sure my GE tidbit will get nuked on the other thread so I'll deposit it somewhere more sheltered, if nobody minds.

It's interesting observing the effect(no media coverage) but one really has to look at the cause. Or one of the causes.

Media assets owned by GE(General Electric). (they own a lot more stuff unrelated to media too)
Not to worry, the royal wedding will get coverage.

GE doesn't own the Associated Press but AP is still waiting on 3 FOIA requests from NRC and haven't gotten them. Right now, NRC isn't complying with requests.

Requests from AP to NRC -
1. access to and copies of all communications between the NRC, the Department of Energy, GE Energy and Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami.
2. access to and copies of all
internal communications within the NRC (including its chairman, four commissioners and their staff
members) pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami.
3. access to and copies of all communications between the NRC and government counterparts in Japan pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Danuta

Apr30-11, 01:27 PM

The happiest news since a long time:

http://americasforum.org/archives/427

Much, much happier than using sunflowers. Those would only just brighten your day.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_660529.html

jlduh

May1-11, 02:17 AM

TEPCO vice president Norio Tsuzumi recognizes this desaster is a MAN MADE DISASTER and not a natural one. At least he recognizes that...

When he was asked if he thinks of the nuclear crisis a man-made disaster or a natural disaster, he said personally he thinks it is a man-made disaster.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_09.html

When he adds that

[...] some say the nuclear accident in Fukushima was beyond any expectations but personally he thinks adequate precautions should have been in place

does he remembers that he is... Vice President? That remark is kind of surprising, man!

But at least, that's one of the firsts times is see from this industry that kind of recognition of their responsability and lack of precautions. For the first time, do they they simply... DOUBT?

Doubt is IMHO the stuff that lacks the most in this industry very self assured of it's safety and superiority -especially when we consider the possible concentrated and extended consequences of its impacts in case of severe accidents, which is WAY beyond what are the risks in any other industry .

And not only in Japan...

jlduh

May1-11, 02:28 AM

More workers to be sent to Fukushima?

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_11.html

Well, when you consider the situation and the numbers of workers involved until now, and compare it to what has been done at Tchernobyl, it is clear to me that the difference is huge and without any comparison in fact.

Considering what has to be done to stabilize the situation and THEN to contain this mess in a kind of sarcophagus, it's clear that the number of people necessary will be even bigger than at Tchernobyl where a lot received much more than what they should have!

The numbers of workers will be a direct result of the work to be done (HUGE, and even more than that!) and the limit of time that radioactivity imposes to each one, so you can imagine...

To me this desaster will at the end involve even more workers than at Tchernobyl.

Dmytry

May2-11, 06:34 AM

jlduh

May2-11, 03:27 PM

Well, to me this is really one of the main reasons of the low social acceptance of this industry in many countries, to be related to some other reasons i developped in a post above. This technology has been developped at first by military engineers for military reasons, and this culture of secrecy (the Top Secret culture of the military world) has always been glued to this technology. Private companies have developped big efforts to repeat "We are transparent" (and paid a lot of money to com agencies to do it!) but this is totally ruined when we consider for example this kind of behaviour from the NRC in front of AP's request which fits under legal rights.

What happened here in France in 1986 was an other example (i was then a young engineer, i got my 20 years old birthday in April 1986 so Tchernobyl has been a big milestone in my life...): the cover up of real contamination data by french government, and especially the so called "professor Pellerin" who used false numbers in the medias to demonstrate that the radioactive cloud stopped at the boundary between Germany and France. These false data lead to no protective measures for people, especially in Corsica (an island of France) and Alsace area where i now live, which ended up with demonstrated increased numbers of thyroid cancers because people were drinking contaminated milk, eating contaminated mushrooms, and so on. This is unacceptable. But Mr Pellerin was previously a military general, so this was a "normal policy" guess. Business as usual i would say.

As long as this industry will continue that kind of opacity on the numbers and the real risks, there will be a growing number of opponents because this is just not acceptable in a normal democracy. This is perhaps possible in a Gadhafi Democracy, so maybe they have the solution if they want to continue the same way they did for decades: hire Gadhafi as a consultant. If they don't accept this, then they have to change their practices. A civil power industry CANNOT be managed in a military style in a respectable democracy. Period.

A new example in Japan, from the news:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/02_32.html

The secretary-general of the joint task force and prime the minister's advisor, Goshi Hosono, apologized for the delay in releasing the data.

Hosono said the task force withheld the information because some data were based on overly rigorous assumptions and feared it may trigger panic.

Well, this panic fear has always been the reason invoked for doing so. Well if the nuclear industry is not a dangerous one, if there is no risk as it is always said, then why fearing panic? There is a very strong contradiction within their strategy of communication and this becomes more and more counter-productive to demonstrate what they want to demonstrate, that they are (supposedly) transparent.

Saying is one thing, doing is an other. And now history has long list of events and examples to illustrate this.

jlduh

May2-11, 03:37 PM

This is the first time i see this, times are changing: Shareholders call for nuclear plant closures!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/02_31.html

Some of the shareholders of a Japanese electric power company say they want the utility to close its nuclear power plants.

On Monday, a group of 232 individual stockholders of Tohoku Electric Power Company submitted the documents needed for their proposal to scrap its nuclear power plants.

Well, sharelolders are also sometimes citizens... and they could even be citizen impacted by the accidents of their companies!

Danuta

May4-11, 07:19 PM

An excellent read.

Ties Bind Japan Nuke Sector, Regulators

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2069237,00.html

"Regulators simply didn't see it as their role to pick apart the
utility's raw data and computer modeling to judge for themselves
whether the plant was sufficiently protected from tsunami. The policy
amounted to this: Trust plant operator TEPCO — and don't worry
about verifying its math or its logic."

jlduh

May5-11, 04:47 PM

jlduh

May6-11, 07:47 AM

about the Hamaoka restart and reassessment of risks related to earthquake:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_39.html

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_39.html

Well, it seems Kan is moving faster now on this subject!

Kan calls for halt of Hamaoka nuclear reactors

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_31.html

Kan announced the decision on Friday, citing the need to better secure the plant against earthquakes and tsunami in the wake of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The prime minister says he has asked the plant operator, Chubu Electric Power Company, to halt reactors No.4 and No.5, and not to restart reactor No.3, which is now offline for regular inspections.

Dmytry

May6-11, 11:34 AM

I post this recent video which debunks MSNBC propaganda proposed at the date of 25th anniversary of Chernobyl accident. MSNBC is owned by GE who also built some of the reactors at Fukushima.

If you didn't know that people returning living in the controled zone around Chernobyl are in fact living LONGER than the ones staying outside, then it's probably because you didn't hear MSNBC propaganda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7BlJIMxwKg&feature=related

For a long time nuclear activities, even the "civil" ones, were managed in military styles. Now, in addition, private companies make marketing out of them.

In the first case, the lies were called "top secret defense". Now they are called "communication and propaganda for the masses"...
holy ****.
Well, those people may be living longer, if you are speaking of the russians who are effectively finding refugee in the zone from various crap that happens in Russia. I mean, if the mafia is after you, you may go to zone and avoid getting killed by mafia, and thus live longer.

It really is reminiscent of the anthropogenic global warming. The industry always denies effects of the pollutants, tries to bribe scientists with 'research grants' (some, successfully), etc. The people in zone living longer? It's primarily old folks in the zone! (And just a very few young folks whom are hiding from something) No **** if you take average age, or average age at death even, it'll be larger.

Luca Bevil

May8-11, 05:14 AM

Hi to everyone.

I am sorry I am late in joining the discussions around this interesting forum.

having said that energy production, especially nuclear energy production, is a sensitive issues that ignites sometimes overheated discussions, i have to say that I found most if not all posts made by Dmitry extremely well informed and impronted to a sane scientific and risk averse attitude that is the only attitude that can prevent or at least substantially reduce the risk of further nightmares.

Thank you Dmitry for sharing with us.

zapperzero

May8-11, 07:53 AM

Trying to keep my uninformed rants off the main thread:

As of now, it seems like there's a temp spike on the bottom of #3. This spells corium to me, so new massive releases are a distinct possibility again. This time, the predominant winds are shifting inland.

I guess the political lesson to be learned is don't eff around with already-blasted nuclear reactors. Go all in fast and hard, involve the army, accept any outside help you can get (especially from neighbors), use the wave of popular anger and fear to get volunteers and secure political support NOW for what are sure to be illegal measures and rather un-popular ones in the medium term. The Obama administration had no trouble securing a ban on new drilling in the Gulf during the Macondo crisis.

Some contamination on-site and in the environs is to be expected, some people may get hurt in the haste. Don't sweat it. Heroes are good for the national psyche. It beats having to wait around for the next criticality/explosion/tsunami/quake/typhoon while apologizing profusely and trying to pre-emptively shift blame like some god-damn weasel.

Yeah, I'm angry. Does it show?

robinson

May8-11, 11:27 AM

A lot of people are angry. And frightened. It's a normal response to such a situation.

Danuta

May9-11, 09:58 PM

I guess the political lesson to be learned is don't eff around with already-blasted nuclear reactors.

Political lesson learned by others maybe but not TEPCO. Forget them effing around with already blasted nuke reactors, they are still at the effing around with the data stage, which should eventually tell them the nuke reactors are blasted.

Their new tactic is to overwhelm the public with data as opposed to previous underwhelming.

Tepco drowns media in data tsunami
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110510f2.html

"The result is a marathon of highly technical information delivered in dull and excruciating detail that regularly drags on for four hours or more, to the dismay of the patiently long-suffering reporters.

To some, this dragged-out daily rundown has become another symbol of Japan's cultural passion for process — the very opposite of the decisive, topdown leadership that some experts say is desperately needed during the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

"What is missing is one strong balanced leadership to align everything toward one goal," said Shuri Fukunaga, managing director of Burson-Marsteller in Tokyo, who consults companies and governments about crisis communications.

Fukunaga says Japan is skilled at teamwork, which is good under normal times. But it's a dismal failure at having a clear leader take control — a vital necessity during a crisis.

"The leaders tend to be more of a figurehead when what you need is someone to roll up your sleeves and jump in," she said."

jlduh

May10-11, 02:40 AM

Susudake

May10-11, 09:24 PM

Jiduh, first of all thanks for your contributions here--and no need to apologize for mistakes in English, yours is just fine :-).

In the article quoted above this statement also stood out:

[quote]

Goshi Hosono, an adviser to the prime minister, initiated the joint news conferences at Tepco, hoping to send a unified message to the public and the international community.

"We have not been mistaken in our response to the crisis," he told reporters. "But our public relations effort has been lacking."

[end quote]

Is it just me or is this guy (and the many others I suspect he speaks for) completely divorced from reality?

Amazing.

Susudake

May11-11, 12:05 PM

jlduh

May11-11, 05:09 PM

You are completely right and i already mentionned it several times, the way radiations are very often presented leads to misunderstanding...

Saying that an alpha emitter can have its emission blocked by a simple sheet of paper is misleading because this only implies external indirect contamination. But this alpha emitter can also enter the body (inhalation, ingestion...) and very often it is not mentionned that then this alpha emitter is the most dangerous one of all for the cells, even if it can act only at a limited distance blocked by a sheet of paper which won't be of any help when in close contact with living cells.

Contamination can be external or internal (from the body standpoint) and direct or indirect. Not only radiations matters, but dust and particulates are also very important of course!

Danuta

May11-11, 05:25 PM

Can this get even more irresponsible and fool hardy?

Children Don Masks, Hats in Fukushima as Radiation Looms

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/fukushima-students-wear-masks-as-radiation-looms.html

Students at the Shoyo Junior High School in Fukushima are wearing masks, caps and long-sleeved jerseys to attend classes as their exposure to radiation is on pace to equal annual limits for nuclear industry workers.

“Students are told not to go out to the school yard and we keep windows shut,” said Yukihide Sato, the vice principal at Shoyo Junior High in Date city, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) northwest from the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear station. “Things are getting worse, but I don’t know what to do.”

Drakkith

May11-11, 06:45 PM

I just looked through the powerpoint presentation at:

http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

One slide compares radiation doses from flying, chest x-rays etc.

The implication is that external and internal exposure is the same. There is little distinction made generally in information released to the public.

Such obfuscation does not lend credibility to these authorities to those of us aware of this critical difference.

What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.

The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal[1]) or rem (symbol rem) is a unit of radiation dose equivalent. It is the product of the absorbed dose in rads and a weighting factor, WR, which accounts for the effectiveness of the radiation to cause biological damage.

This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation recieved externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.

Susudake

May12-11, 03:26 AM

What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.

This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation recieved externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.

I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence).....

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?

Dmytry

May12-11, 03:45 AM

I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence).....

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?
Well hopefully there's no alpha active dust except in immediate vicinity of the plant. I don't think we had a lot of fuel dust problem after Chernobyl.

Otherwise - yes this comparison of external doses and ignoring internal (and a new limit for schoolchildren, at 20mSv/year, over which someone quitted), that is worrysome. The land is contaminated with cs-137 (beta and gamma-active )and it is just too difficult to evaluate how much of it gets ingested - it is fairly clear that they assume 0 , just comparing averaged gamma doses. The internal doses depend greatly on how well the food is to be tested and how much stuff could be raising into the air when it gets hot and some dirt dries out, etc etc. It can spike when there's a wildfire, for example. It is not something you can just calculate.
Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

jlduh

May12-11, 04:00 AM

jlduh

May12-11, 05:57 AM

An interesting summary of the crisis and its implications from the global nuclear safety system an regulation standpoint. Independance and conflicts of interests.

Note at the very beginning this exchange between a woman living close to the plant ant Tepco Top management:

Woman: You always told us it was safe. Why?
Tepco Top management: I am very sorry.

For me it's the symbol of this disaster.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/movie/feature201105112006.html

More on the various cover ups from Tepco and Nisa in the past (which is part of Ministery of Economy, Trade and Industry).

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:

Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company.

Susudake

May12-11, 06:25 AM

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

Yes this is in part what I was getting at--ingestion through inhalation or through ingesting contaminated food.

And it's not just how serious the health risk is--for me. For me it's a moral issue too--obfuscating the difference while children are being affected. It's no different than killing children with, I don't know, depleted uranium? In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us. To quote Edano today: "very deplorable."

I'll note I very much appreciate your input here and if you're the same dmytry at arstechnica, there as well; I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it. Anyway, you have much much more expertise on this matter than I do so I suspect you'd object much more to being lumped with me :-).

NUCENG

May12-11, 06:50 AM

Let me ask you a simple question Drakkith:

could you explain me how any measurement in Sv (or mSv) can take into account the effects of ingested and inhaled particles as this parameter is highly dependent, as i mentionned several times before, of what a person does, touches, eats, drinks? (Ultimately it is also very dependent of local windy conditions and relocation of deposited dust for example)

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html

Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.

Danuta

May12-11, 08:57 AM

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:

"Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company."

Interesting YouTube vid of Kei Sugaoka blowing the whistle. The report is in Japanese but Kei Sugaoka speaks in English. Press CC tab at right hand bottom of vid for English subtitle.

Kei Sugaoka the GE/Tepco Whistleblower 東電のトラブル隠し

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBjiLaVOsI4

Drakkith

May12-11, 09:40 AM

Drakkith

May12-11, 09:47 AM

Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received. It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body. So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.

Also, it is entirely possible to accurately track radiation in food and water and calculate the rate of internal absorption people will be exposed to. It is being done right now as we speak. Whether you believe it or not is your problem, and as we already know, you don't believe much of anything unless it agrees with your own views.

pdObq

May12-11, 09:48 AM

In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us.

I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it.

You are contradicting yourself big time.

Dmytry

May12-11, 11:40 AM

Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received.

Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?

It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body.

Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.

So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.
it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that.
They are reporting it as Sieverts because it makes you (and people like you) think that they done the conversion.
And you are the one who has absolutely no idea.

Dmytry

May12-11, 11:54 AM

It is not perfect
How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.

Drakkith

May12-11, 11:54 AM

Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?

Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.

Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.

Correct, I meant to put Alpha's there, not betas.

it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that alone.

Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense? Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.

Susudake

May12-11, 11:58 AM

You are contradicting yourself big time.

It may seem contradictory, but it's not.

You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?

How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.

Drakkith

May12-11, 11:59 AM

How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.

Nothing is perfect. If you don't like it, too bad. The doses are estimated as best as possible using the available data. Whether you believe it is close enough to correct or not is irrelevant, as it is one of the few ways of getting the dose people have been exposed to.

jlduh

May12-11, 12:00 PM

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html

Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.

thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

Drakkith

May12-11, 12:02 PM

It may seem contradictory, but it's not.

You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?

How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.

I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to. It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.

Dmytry

May12-11, 12:36 PM

Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.

I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).
When a geiger counter reads "0.01mSv/h" somewhere, it is extremely misleading. edit: Misleading both ways btw. Counter overcounts betas massively, so you can get a big scare when you find some mildly beta-radioactive crud, that'll make the counter click at insane rate, while the actual dose is much smaller than what it shows.

Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense?

Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.

Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.
sigh.
See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.

NUCENG

May12-11, 01:51 PM

thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.

Susudake

May12-11, 02:19 PM

I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to.

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.

I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.

I refuse to get dragged further into such a "debate." I guess you'll have to ignore what I write or continue to be annoyed.

And as to some of these exchanges being less than civil, I'd say that the magnitude of the situation should excuse some passionate exchanges as long as both parties are acting in good faith. FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.

Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.

Drakkith

May12-11, 04:17 PM

See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.

Bad comparison. The detector can easily be set ahead of time to predetermined parameters to make it into sieverts. And even IF the settings are a little off, you can easily determine the real sieverts if you need to by taking the values you got off the detector and plugging in additonal data.

I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).

Yes, and that value will have different weight in the formula depending on the parts of the body that have been imaged. However, in the field you are looking at a total body exposure. Will it be as exact as a medical scan? Probably not. But the radiation isn't hitting one body part like a medical scan is, it is hitting all of you.

Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.

You can easily find the grays by reversing the formula you used to put the geiger counter in sieverts. And why doesn't it convert beta's correctly?

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

Not in the way you are referring to it there isn't.

FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

So? I don't care what you think about me.

I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.

I've interacted with plentry of people as well. Most of them that DON'T have at least some small amount of scientific mindset don't have a clue how the world actually works. They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they dont trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.

Probably because of the difficulty in keeping tact for years of people who don't understand a word of what comes out of their mouths.

I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.

Nonsense, if I make a statement that is 100% about something that is immune to opinion, such as facts, numbers, ETC, and I'm incorrect, then I will immediately admit my mistake when I am made aware of it. The problem here is that 99% of this thread ISN'T about those kinds of things. It's about opinions. Even the title of the thread screams opinion.

jlduh

May12-11, 04:38 PM

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion :approve:)

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

All told, 35, or about two-thirds, of Japan's commercial reactors will have been shut down by the end of May.

During the next few months, 5 more reactors will have to be shut down ahead of regular inspections.

If the utilities decide to keep these 40 reactors offline for the time being, Japan will have about 75 percent of its reactors shutdown this summer.

jlduh

May12-11, 04:47 PM

and an other fact (but it's more for getting lighter here, even if the reality behind it is not fun for people concerned): the procedure for citizens to get compensation from Tepco seems as clear as their strategy for restoring the mess:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/hosyou/images/flow-e.pdf

I wish good luck to these unfortunate people...

Dmytry

May12-11, 04:55 PM

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.
But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

In my opinion it's at best 'within same order of magnitude' sort of estimate. The dose near a rain drain can be order of magnitude higher than average [not as dramatically as in the video where Geiger counter is counting betas, but still quite dramatically thanks to inverse square law], the long term inhalation (of the deposited material that re-enters air) is very dependent to the weather, etc. The doses that kids can get, well, god knows, kids play in dirt, some types of dirt chemically absorb Cs-137, some do not. The distribution of radioactivity is a fractal with high 'roughness', there's huge variability down to 1m distances.
Then the food testing, beyond limit food will slip through occasionally [you cant test everything, just randomly chosen samples], how often? How do you know in advance how often? And what is the distribution of the doses? Then, there's the issue of wood ashes... do they use wood for heating at all or not? In the tsunami aftermath? Then there's the issue of the wreckage cleanup work that has to be done. And so on and so forth, and that's the things that i'd guess can change dose by more than factor of 2, and there's probably a lot of other important things I missed. The contamination level of radioactive boars in EU varies immensely - a few boars are heavily contaminated, most are harmless [strongly non-gaussian distribution btw], not a good situation for random sampling based testing.

It is not enough to calculate 'to the best of your knowledge' in science. You need also to provide the error range, and ideally distribution of the errors. In engineering too - I believe you do have ranges for uncertain numbers?

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

Drakkith

May12-11, 05:00 PM

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion :approve:)

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

Interesting. Hopefully they will fix any issues before they come back online. (If they are going to that is.)

jlduh

May12-11, 05:06 PM

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html

3,480 becquerels of radioactive cesium were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 5th in Nikko City, Tochigi Prefecture. The figure exceeds the state limit of 300 becquerels. Also, at two different locations in Nasushiobara City, 3,600 becquerels and 860 becquerels of radioactive cesium respectively were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 3rd.

Tochigi Prefecture requested farmers in the area where the radioactive substance was detected not to feed pasture grass to livestock.

NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nikko+city&aq=&sll=36.844461,139.592285&sspn=2.562697,6.696167&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Nikko,+Tochigi+Prefecture,+Japan&ll=37.278424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

Drakkith

May12-11, 05:11 PM

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

I understand. But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one. The key, I believe, is to make it as accurate as possible.

But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

And? The fact is that the system is in use and it works, whether you agree with how accurate it is or not. Is there another way of doing it that works better in that situation?

Your entire post goes off on a tangent about things that aren't remotely close to dealing with counting sieverts on a geiger counter. Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!

You might not like the fact that there are error ranges and estimates and such, but in the end it doesn't matter. There isn't any other way of determining these things.

And just to make sure everyone knows my position, I'll say it again.

I think there were serious mistakes made in the running of the NPP's in Japan. I think there are currently and will be more mistakes made everywhere. But my opinion is that the gain is worth the risk as long we err more on the side of caution than we have in Japan.

Dmytry

May12-11, 05:20 PM

Drakkith: What I do not like is that nobody is calculating or reporting the error ranges. There is an other way. Honest science. Where not only you tell the measurements, but you also tell how much (and how often by how much) it can be wrong.
Other thing that I do not like is this nonsense discussion where any error - be it off by up to an order of magnitude, be it to 1% tolerance, is equally 'imperfect'. You just don't distinguish between any degree of 'imperfect', and for you it makes absolutely no difference, it's all verbal reasoning from you, is it not? Yes/no, perfect/imperfect (and everything is imperfect), etc.

"Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!"
Do I think they haven't took any? No, they have, some of. Do I think they have took ALL ? No I don't! It is immense amount of work. It is just not doable, period. What is doable though, is a honest estimation of by how much it can be wrong. Hell, even a dishonest estimation of the error range is still a huge step forward compared to 'throw some numbers out and assure them that it is the best measurements that can be done'.

"But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one."
Suppose you had a ruler that reads in calories, you measure size of the fruit with it. Well, the distance measurements on that ruler can be accurate, but the calorie on that ruler are not. You can, however, use the ruler that reads in centimeters (or inches), with a conversion table (for different fruits), to obtain calories far more accurately.

unlurk

May12-11, 06:08 PM

jlduh, I have no interest in joining this thread.

I'm interested in the technical aspects of Fukushima, not the politics.

As such there are aspects of Fukushima that might be compared to Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or SL1 or any number of sites or events.

I only wondered if that documentary was considered a "fringe" video made by nutjobs or not.

You are living in France so I thought you might have some knowledge of the subject matter.

BTW
2, 3 and 4 are each spewing steam at the moment.

Drakkith

May12-11, 06:14 PM

Drakkith: What I do not like is that nobody is calculating or reporting the error ranges. There is an other way. Honest science. Where not only you tell the measurements, but you also tell how much (and how often by how much) it can be wrong.

It isn't reported because it only serves to confuse almost everyone and cause even MORE panic. The average person doesn't like any possibility of errors, no matter how inevitable they are. (In my experience at least) This doesn't make it dishonest to me. I guess it does to you.

Other thing that I do not like is this nonsense discussion where any error - be it off by up to an order of magnitude, be it to 1% tolerance, is equally 'imperfect'. You just don't distinguish between any degree of 'imperfect', and for you it makes absolutely no difference, it's all verbal reasoning from you, is it not? Yes/no, perfect/imperfect (and everything is imperfect), etc.

Incorrect. I have no idea why you would believe this. Any errors that are outside of whatever is reasonable given the situation are unacceptable.

"Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!"
Do I think they haven't took any? No, they have, some of. Do I think they have took ALL ? No I don't! It is immense amount of work. It is just not doable, period. What is doable though, is a honest estimation of by how much it can be wrong. Hell, even a dishonest estimation of the error range is still a huge step forward compared to 'throw some numbers out and assure them that it is the best measurements that can be done'.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to accurately calculate reasonable estimates.

"But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one."
Suppose you had a ruler that reads in calories, you measure size of the fruit with it. Well, the distance measurements on that ruler can be accurate, but the calorie on that ruler are not. You can, however, use the ruler that reads in centimeters (or inches), with a conversion table, to obtain calories far more accurately.

Except that you can use your conversion table before you measure to ensure that your marks are accurate before you measure. If we didn't know what kind of fruit it was beforehand, that would be different.

I use the word reasonable here because every situation is different and must be looked at individually.

Susudake

May12-11, 08:33 PM

You are contradicting yourself big time.

I'm going to revisit this, not because I'm so concerned that I might (be seen to) have contradicted myself, but because it's simply a false comparison.

Saying there's a "complex" of any kind does not mean everyone within this complex acts in unison, that it's a monolithic well-greased machine. The military industrial complex term appears to date to Eisenhower's speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

and more recently other writers have added different societal sectors to the term, usually academic (google it and you'll find writings, at least on the web, about that factor), security, and political.

The intimate relations between the military and nuclear sectors go back to the begining of the nuclear age.

So, in sum, the MIC concept, at least, is well-established and supported by no small amount of evidence; adding other sectors less so, yet it's not something I just pulled out of my hat.

On the other hand, when one member of this forum states or strongly implies that two others think exactly alike based on a couple of statements by one of them (this statement about Dmytry and me was originally made after I'd made one or two posts) then they are being inaccurate.

So you have a bit of information being used arrive at an erroneous conclusion, vs. decades of information, books, the statements of a former POTUS/highest ranking general during WWII etc.

One would think this difference would be obvious.

Susudake

May12-11, 09:38 PM

I wrote:

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

Not in the way you are referring to it there isn't.

And you're not responding to my point.

I wrote: FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

So? I don't care what you think about me.

same, non-responsive.

I've interacted with plentry of people as well. Most of them that DON'T have at least some small amount of scientific mindset don't have a clue how the world actually works. They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they dont trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

So as long as the have a bit of scientific mindset they're not clueless. I'll agree somewhat, and would counter that people with ONLY a scientific mindset are equally clueless, except that such generalizations are not only full of contempt but also utterly simplistic and unrealistic.

They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they dont trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

and

Probably because of the difficulty in keeping tact for years of people who don't understand a word of what comes out of their mouths.

That kind of naivete has nothing to do with being unscientific. Moreover, the kind of utter disregard for those who don't share your mindset (sound familiar?) you're displaying here is destructive, but more interestingly exactly the kind of contemptuous/hubristic attitude that has being a major factor in getting us into deep doo-doo over and over (see Chernobyl, TMI, Macondo, FDI).

I'll go further and ask: how much death and destruction, how much pollution, how many babies and children blown apart by mines, cluster bombs, irradiated by DU munitions and exploding nuclear plants, etc etc etc has been caused by artists?

Poor performances, ugly, poorly-executed paintings, unlistenable music aside, just how much harm have these clueless artists wreaked on the world?

Now about that engendered by (99% well-meaning) scientists and engineers?

I'm not advocating a return to the stone-age. Technology is wonderful as long as it doesn't endanger our lives (or genetic heritage). But arrogant, contemtuous engineers who think, conversely, that the blueprints in the lab transfer perfectly to the messy reality outside have done much more harm to the world AND to the future of technology than any group of "clueless artistic-types."

Nonsense, if I make a statement that is 100% about something that is immune to opinion, such as facts, numbers, ETC, and I'm incorrect, then I will immediately admit my mistake when I am made aware of it. The problem here is that 99% of this thread ISN'T about those kinds of things.

First, you begin numerous responses to people with very disparaging words, the "nonsense" in this case being a perfect example.
Then, it's a huge assumption you're making that there's this clean, clear break between "facts, numbers" etc and how those facts and numbers affect the real world when applied to it.

Together, they create the exact impression of the one-sided, out-of-touch-with-reality, arrogant contemptuous scientist/engineer the very people you despise rail against.

It's about opinions. Even the title of the thread screams opinion.

And this is the whole point: you can't debate on this thread in such a black-and-white fashion while demonstrating such a lack of respect for those who disagree.

I've read your responses re technical aspects on this thread, and it's obvious you're well-schooled, but even then you're pretty caustic in refuting others.

Obtaining a BA/MA/PhD in literature (to take one example) means years of debating often absolutely debatable points--what did Shakespeare/Dickens/Joyce mean when he wrote this? One garners evidence the best one can and then makes a case with it--kind of like scientific research. But, as I stated before, many if not most people endeavoring in the humanities realize in the end it's all opinion--just better-supported or not-so-well supported opinion--so at least a modicum of self-doubt is not just helpful, but necessary to succeeding. The best scientists have this too, yet so many have this utter confidence in science as the sole source of the truth, which inexorably leads to dismissing non-scientists as clueless, as you have above.

Back in the day all students had to study a core curriculum of humanities, but with the increasing dominance of science and hi-tech in the world this has pretty much stopped. As a result most people in the tech-world these days have little or no education in the humanities. To me this is a monumental tragedy and is a factor in creating potentially monumental catastrophes like FDI.

You no doubt are of the opinion that I'm going way overboard. Well, this is an opinion thread, isn't it. If that's too messy for you perhaps you should stick to technical issues.

Drakkith

May12-11, 09:58 PM

On the other hand, when one member of this forum states or strongly implies that two others think exactly alike based on a couple of statements by one of them (this statement about Dmytry and me was originally made after I'd made one or two posts) then they are being inaccurate.

So you have a bit of information being used arrive at an erroneous conclusion, vs. decades of information, books, the statements of a former POTUS/highest ranking general during WWII etc.

One would think this difference would be obvious.

Your previous statement implies that all these complexes are all purposely doing harm to everyone, and then lying about it and spreading false information all on purpose. This ignores the fact that each of those complexes are made up of thousands of individuals whose ideals, beliefs, morals, etc are all diverse and range all over the place.

Knowing this, AND based on personal experience in some of these "complexes" myself, i guarantee you that your catchall statement is hideously incorrect. For every person that lies, cheats, and steals their way around there are dozens of honest people that work diligently and provide the best information possible.

Drakkith

May12-11, 11:14 PM

And you're not responding to my point.

That's because you don't have a point. Not one I can see at least. Please elaborate if you do.

same, non-responsive.

There isn't anything to respond to. It's just you assuming that I have blinders on or whatever. So again, I don't care.

So as long as the have a bit of scientific mindset they're not clueless. I'll agree somewhat, and would counter that people with ONLY a scientific mindset are equally clueless, except that such generalizations are not only full of contempt but also utterly simplistic and unrealistic.

That kind of naivete has nothing to do with being unscientific. Moreover, the kind of utter disregard for those who don't share your mindset (sound familiar?) you're displaying here is destructive, but more interestingly exactly the kind of contemptuous/hubristic attitude that has being a major factor in getting us into deep doo-doo over and over (see Chernobyl, TMI, Macondo, FDI).

I'm not disregarding anyone. You're the one continually bringing up pointless statements and judging entire groups of people.

I'll go further and ask: how much death and destruction, how much pollution, how many babies and children blown apart by mines, cluster bombs, irradiated by DU munitions and exploding nuclear plants, etc etc etc has been caused by artists?

As I don't know of any reliable way of finding out how many artists have been in the military, I can't tell you. But I'd bet there were a few.

Poor performances, ugly, poorly-executed paintings, unlistenable music aside, just how much harm have these clueless artists wreaked on the world?

Now about that engendered by (99% well-meaning) scientists and engineers?

How about all those that promote violence and such? Plenty out there.

I'm not advocating a return to the stone-age. Technology is wonderful as long as it doesn't endanger our lives (or genetic heritage). But arrogant, contemtuous engineers who think, conversely, that the blueprints in the lab transfer perfectly to the messy reality outside have done much more harm to the world AND to the future of technology than any group of "clueless artistic-types."

How many poets, artists, songwriters, painters ETC have inspired rebellion, war, ETC in history? How many non scientists/engineers have made incorrect choices based on ignorance or dismissal? Or based purely on religious views? Plenty. EVERYONE is capable of making bad decisions or doing harm to someone else.

First, you begin numerous responses to people with very disparaging words, the "nonsense" in this case being a perfect example.
Then, it's a huge assumption you're making that there's this clean, clear break between "facts, numbers" etc and how those facts and numbers affect the real world when applied to it.
Together, they create the exact impression of the one-sided, out-of-touch-with-reality, arrogant contemptuous scientist/engineer the very people you despise rail against.

Have I linked any specific numbers? No. That's because I understand that no matter what I type up here on my computer, it won't be close to being accurate because I'm not there. I don't have the needed information.

And this is the whole point: you can't debate on this thread in such a black-and-white fashion while demonstrating such a lack of respect for those who disagree.

Like you've been doing this whole time? I don't have any problem with your stance. Trust me, I'm not responding to you merely because you disagree with me. I'm attempting to point out WHY certain things work and others don't. And I will most definitively point out when people make assumptions about broad groups (like you have) for no good reason.

I've read your responses re technical aspects on this thread, and it's obvious you're well-schooled, but even then you're pretty caustic in refuting others.

Obtaining a BA/MA/PhD in literature (to take one example) means years of debating often absolutely debatable points--what did Shakespeare/Dickens/Joyce mean when he wrote this? One garners evidence the best one can and then makes a case with it--kind of like scientific research.

Sure. And if this was the case here I wouldn't have a problem. However this isn't the case. All I've seen is one person (including myself) after another spew random opinions about without any evidence to back any of it up. And on top of that, any evidence linked against that view is immediately disregarded as inaccurate because "people aren't trustworthy" or whatever. I try very hard to make sure that when I dispute something I do it for a reason and not merely because I don't believe it's accurate. Unless of course it's something only opinion based, and then I will try to explain why I believe their view is incorrect the best way I can.

But, as I stated before, many if not most people endeavoring in the humanities realize in the end it's all opinion--just better-supported or not-so-well supported opinion--so at least a modicum of self-doubt is not just helpful, but necessary to succeeding. The best scientists have this too, yet so many have this utter confidence in science as the sole source of the truth, which inexorably leads to dismissing non-scientists as clueless, as you have above.

Truth? What truth is there except science? Science at its base is a search for truth! It also includes things like humanities! How and why people act the way they do, different cultures, it all is encompassed. So I really don't know what you mean when you say that so many have this confidence as science as the sole source of truth, as I've never known anything else to be "truth".

Back in the day all students had to study a core curriculum of humanities, but with the increasing dominance of science and hi-tech in the world this has pretty much stopped. As a result most people in the tech-world these days have little or no education in the humanities. To me this is a monumental tragedy and is a factor in creating potentially monumental catastrophes like FDI.

I have no idea whether this is a factor or not. All I can say is that all in all safety is MUCH better nowadays than it has ever been.

You no doubt are of the opinion that I'm going way overboard. Well, this is an opinion thread, isn't it. If that's too messy for you perhaps you should stick to technical issues.

That's fair. If this is going to be an "opinion thread" then I will post accordingly. I was unaware this thread was mostly opinion based.

jlduh

May13-11, 03:53 AM

To all: you should read the first posts i have written for starting this thread, i think it should be useful to avoid misconception about this thread and understand in which conditions it has been created and what is expected to be seen.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3221090&postcount=1

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486089

Again this Fukushima disaster is a very special one and most of us are very affected by what happens there, but we are also left with very little resources to act and even understand what happened, what's happening, and what will (possibly) happen: the scale of this accident 5' reactors hit at the same time, more than 10 cores involved with several in a very bad state or probably in current meltdown, in an area with very high densities of population, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and in fact is out of proportion of most of our resources (reources on site to try to contain the situation, but also resources here on this forum to analyse the situation). We have to admit that.

If you read the main thread and consider the PF guidelines, based on the very specific kind of this situation as described above, i can guarantee that this thread woud be "quiet like a dodo" ,as someone recently wrote with some humour, if only restricted to pure facts or theories published in some reviews and so on! Why? Well because this main thread is just trying to keep contact with what happens there (and in fact will be an unvaluable and incredibly useful record of all the events in the future) and that this situation is right now mainly beyond any scientific explanations and approaches, also because most of the infos we get are from Tepco and proved to be (for various reasons...) very inconsistent, unreliable, full of mistakes, and very incomplete (complete analysis of all the isotopes found are very scarce for example, this would be a big help for the SFs for example: WHY?).

I wrote some days ago a message to explain why, in my opinion, more and more moderate members were getting frustrated and even upset even if they were trying to stay as much as possible on the analysis of facts, numbers, and parameters:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3297330&postcount=6792

This should explain why this "more political" thread can have its interests in the current and very special situation happening at Fukushima. It's also here to try to keep the main thread as "clean" as possible on facts and analysis, but again what makes this main thread very alive (this is the only place most people find on the net to continue to follow this subject on a day by day basis from the technical standpoint, and this gives PF a very good visibility and gives high credit to this forum!) is the amount of information collected and recorded and debated here, which are not, let recognize it, always as "pure" as some scientific approach would like them to be, but because this is just not possible... This Fukushima is a worldwide accident and the scale of it, and the way it started and the way it evolves, are the main reasons of this being like that.

So please consider this more political thread as it should be, regarding what i explained, and avoid entering into too personal disputes which are boring IMHO.

Also, if this kind of thread has no interest from your standpoint, you can also simply avoid it :smile:

jlduh

May13-11, 04:06 AM

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:

Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

The plan that was hammered out on Friday by the government taskforce calls on corporate and individual users to reduce their electricity use by a uniform 15 percent from the peak summer period last year. This is ten percentage points lower than the maximum 25 percent target announced in April.

Under the plan, factories and other major consumers will be asked to prepare to reduce their use of electricity in the summer.

rowmag

May13-11, 04:20 AM

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:

Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

Yes, this is a good thing. Everybody went on an energy conservation binge after the earthquake to minimize the need for blackouts, and it was pretty successful, but I think the big challenge this summer will be to see how well fans can replace air conditioners.

jlduh

May13-11, 06:31 AM

If there should be an ultimate reason for not having privately owned companies running plants like the nuclear ones with so heavy consequences to social life and communities around in case of accidents, i think it could be this one:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_20.html

In the list of what they will do to raise "maximum" funding, I see "reduce the salaries and the bonuses -which bonuses by the way???? Will they still have bonuses???) BUT i DIDN'T see something like:

"refund the necessary dividends accumulated in the past by shareholders"

(for an other example of huge social impact of a crisis, this remark could apply to all private banks in the financial crisis, with in both cases the TOO BIG TO FAIL THREAT TO PUSH TO ACCEPT THE "DEAL")

Instead of this, sates/citizens will probably pay collectively for it.

For any "normal citizen", this is not acceptable to privatize the gains for years and share the losses with the community. Especially when a company has a so long list of frauds and lies to the community behind her...

Ok, you drove drunk several times in the past, this time you have a huge accident and kill and injure many people and destroy their house, you have to pay fines and penalties for it and... you go to see the government to ask to help you to pay part of the stuff -but promise you will do your "maximum" to pay part of it!

Does it sound right and logical to you, as a "normal citizen"?

I know that it has been said several times here: "don't condemn them as long as you didn't run into their shoes".

But hey, if I was a japanese citizen, couln't I say ALSO that they stealing MY SHOES in fact?

Gov decides about the structure to be put in place to help Tepco pay compensation:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_14.html

Under the framework decided on Friday, a new state backed institution will be set up to facilitate quick payments to those affected. The new body would receive financial contributions from electric power companies that own nuclear power plants in Japan.
The government will inject public funds by allocating to the institution a special type of bond that can be cashed whenever necessary.The institution would strengthen TEPCO's capital base by making use of these funds to pay compensation claims and make business investments.

The institution would annually return a certain amount of money from TEPCO to the state coffers.

This is quite fuzzy to say the least. For sure Tepco has two big levers in its hands in case of bankrupcy: the risk of lack of supply AND the risk of leaving the state with 4 crippled reactors on its back. Would be interested to see what will be the final key ratio for financing this structure, between nuclear industry contributions and state contributions. Anyway, at the end, the ones who will pay are the citizens or the users (which are both the same). The only question is to know the contrinution of private nuclear shareholders in the compensation financing.

Why doesn't nuclear industry have a mutual compensation system (mutual insurance) being feed by nuclear companies, to be used in that kind of accident? Even if it proved not sufficent, oil industry have something like that in place i think. It can also be done with a kind of reinsurance mutual fund, like ASSURPOL in France (even if i think the nuclear industry is not in this system either in France: nuclear risks are so big that the insurance for consequences is a real problem, but one way or the other, this has to be adressed -and its better if it is before hand!- and costs to be included in the total cost of the produced energy through nuclear plants):

http://www.assurpol.fr/index.php?page=general

jlduh

May13-11, 09:32 AM

This news confirms go into the direction of 2 points already mentionned in this thread, the latter being just above:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_20.html

Referring to information offered by Japan right after the accident, Poneman said the US side had difficulty grasping what was actually happening. He said if US officials had been able to obtain data more quickly, they could have given better advice.

It seems that not only us here are saying this...

Poneman said that even before the Fukushima crisis, the US had repeatedly urged Japan to ratify an international treaty over damage from serious nuclear plant accidents. He expressed hope that Japan will ratify the pact soon.

Under the treaty, compensation for serious nuclear accidents would be financially supported by funds collected from the signatories.

Well, this is precisely what i was mentionning in the post above!

jlduh

May13-11, 09:50 AM

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html

NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nikko+city&aq=&sll=36.844461,139.592285&sspn=2.562697,6.696167&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Nikko,+Tochigi+Prefecture,+Japan&ll=37.278424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

Some more contamination of tea leaves:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_39.html

Radioactive material above designated safety limits has been detected in tea leaves harvested in 5 municipalities in Kanagawa Prefecture, neighboring Tokyo.

The prefectural government checked samples of leaves harvested in 15 municipalities in the region. Officials say that samples from 5 of those were found to contain unsafe levels of radioactive cesium.

They say 780 becquerels of cesium were detected in tea leaves in Odawara City, 740 becquerels in Kiyokawa Village, 680 becquerels in Yugawara Town, 670 becquerels in Aikawa Town and 530 becquerels in Manazuru Town.

Damn, this info is really a breaking news to me, not because of the levels (even it there are sufficiently high to make them unsafe!) but BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED:

KANAGAWA prefecture is south of Tokyo!!!!

I located Odawara on this map for example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=odawara++Japan&aq=&sll=35.455916,139.413414&sspn=0.151015,0.41851&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Odawara,+Kanagawa+Prefecture,+Japan&ll=36.73008,140.855713&spn=4.754161,13.392334&t=h&z=7

So this is around 330 kms south west of Daichi plant!

Minami Ashigara, also listed in the article, is even further

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Minami+Ashigara+Japan&aq=&sll=36.721274,140.866699&sspn=9.505762,26.784668&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Minamiashigara,+Kanagawa+Prefecture,+Japan&ll=36.90598,139.251709&spn=4.74326,13.392334&t=h&z=7

The scale at which unsafe deposits are falling is enlarging day after day...

zapperzero

May13-11, 10:44 AM

Color me surprised.
But seriously, because of Fukushima we'll see how well humans can live in fallout areas. It's unconceivable that half of Japan will be evacuated, so...

SteveElbows

May13-11, 10:51 AM

Color me surprised.
But seriously, because of Fukushima we'll see how well humans can live in fallout areas. It's unconceivable that half of Japan will be evacuated, so...

Well the level of contamination is rather important, its certainly not the first time we have seen a nuclear accident cause problems for farming many hundreds of miles away. As parts of countries such as the UK are still dealing with this issue 25 years after Chernobyl, it wont be at all surprising if we see foodstuffs with contamination levels above the limit in many locations across Japan over time.

SteveElbows

May13-11, 11:21 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110513p2a00m0na019000c.html

According to the announcement, sludge with radioactivity levels of over 100,000 becquerels per kilogram should preferably be incinerated and melted in Fukushima Prefecture before being kept at sewage plants. Ash generated through sludge incineration should be contained in metal barrels to prevent it from scattering.

Ummm, is incinerating radioactive sludge a good idea?

Sludge with radioactivity levels of under 1,000 becquerels per kilogram can be recycled into cement and other material if the levels can be reduced to under 100 becquerels through mixture with other materials and dilution.

"The volume of radioactive sludge should be reduced as much as possible through recycling," said an official with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, adding that the recycling of such sludge into fertilizer should be withheld for the time being.

Oh well at least the radioactive fertilizer is off the agenda for now, what a relief.

etudiant

May13-11, 01:01 PM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110513p2a00m0na019000c.html

Ummm, is incinerating radioactive sludge a good idea?

Oh well at least the radioactive fertilizer is off the agenda for now, what a relief.

According to some data on EX-SKF here
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/now-radioactive-sewage-sludge-from.html
the sewage sludge incineration releases about two thirds of the radioactivity, with the rest concentrated over tenfold in the ash. The ash is then used to help make cement, which may release more of the radioactivity, so the contamination is recycled through the air.
Unfortunately, while the iodine contamination could be largely solved for dairy products by using the milk to make cheese, cesium's long half life makes it a lasting menace.
There is no good fix, at best the people will need to filter everything and avoid local food.
Japan is becoming a testbed for living in a dirty world. Not a good thing.

rowmag

May13-11, 08:38 PM

Some more contamination of tea leaves:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_39.html

Damn, this info is really a breaking news to me, not because of the levels (even it there are sufficiently high to make them unsafe!) but BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED:

KANAGAWA prefecture is south of Tokyo!!!!

It was mentioned on the news last night that those tea plantations have the bad luck to be on the sides of mountains facing Fukushima, so winds from that direction preferentially deposit fallout there. This effect was also apparently observed in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
(Same effect as seen for rain or snow,too, I guess.)

Drakkith

May13-11, 08:53 PM

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:

Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

Yep. It's still unfortunate that this had to happen. I'd hate to have to do something like go without AC all summer down here in Louisiana. (Summer is like 5-6 months long here by the way, or at least it feels like it)

yakiniku

May14-11, 08:29 PM

Plutonium detected in rice paddy by a food manufacturer more than 50 kms away from Fukushima power plant:

http://jbpress.ismedia.jp/articles/-/7890?page=2

また、ある食品メーカーが独自に調査した結果では、福島第一原発から50キロ以上離れた水田の土から、政府が発表している数値よりケタ違いに高い放射線が検出されたという。

Additionally, a certain food manufacturing company conducted a survey by themselves. In a rice field is more than 50kms away from the Fukushima power plant, it was found that there was very high radiation that is very different to what the government released.

(heading)
原発から50キロ以上離れた田んぼの土から高濃度のプルトニウム

High density plutonium is in the rice field that was mentioned previously.

この食品メーカーによると、現時点でその結果を公表するのは影響が大きすぎるため発表は控えているとのことだが、その田んぼの土からは高い濃度のプルトニウムも検出されたそうだ。

According to this food manufacturing company, they currently don't announce these results due to the large influence* that this rice field has high concentration of plutonium.

* Note: It is not mentioned what the influence is but it implies they do not currently release the information as it may have an impact on the media/public.

AntonL

May14-11, 09:52 PM

“4 reactors that are all still emitting significant amounts of radiation into the environment so this is not a situation that has been brought under control …we have ongoing leakage”

“Managing public opinion is as serious an operation as managing the crisis itself

“...it is easier to just reduce the amount of information the public has so that you can control the situation, at least from the point of view of public opinion and keep people from panicking”

http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/search/15/Dxbm7iJTT8U at 4:20 onwards

unfortunately he also took up the leaning unit 4, 03:10 onwards, somehow those graphics look familiar

http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011051400255
Japan to Seek APEC Cooperation to Dispel N-Crisis Rumors

Washington, May 14 (Jiji Press)--Japan is to seek cooperation from other members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in dispelling harmful rumors stemming from the country's nuclear crisis at a meeting of APEC trade ministers to be held Thursday-Friday in Big Sky, Montana.
Japan will ask its APEC partners to respond calmly to the radiation leak accident at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in northeastern Japan, with regard to their import restrictions on Japanese food and industrial products, sources said.

Only way to suppress rumors is to have an open, honest and complete information policy.

jlduh

May15-11, 03:00 AM

AntonL

May15-11, 03:28 AM

Well, looking at the last results of contamination in the last days in the grass, tea leaves and maybe now rice padding, now at a large distance from the plant (more than 300 kms for the tea leaves), it smell that this desaster is going to become a very large affair in the next weeks/months. A a big scandal also.

And now
Radioactive ash found in Tokyo sewage plant -

The ash, containing an unidentified substance with a radioactive density of 170,000 Becquerel per kg, was collected from a plant in Koto Ward, eastern Tokyo, the Nikkei and Sankei dailies said, quoting metropolitan government sources.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_668600.html

jlduh

May15-11, 06:38 AM

hopefully not something bad again...

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/05/91196.html

Trouble delayed cold shutdown of Hamaoka nuke reactor
SHIZUOKA, Japan, May 15, Kyodo

Chubu Electric Power Co. said Sunday that cooling system trouble delayed the 'cold shutdown' of the No. 5 reactor at its Hamaoka power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture for about two hours earlier in the day, while ruling out any external release of radioactive substances.

etudiant

May15-11, 08:42 AM

And now

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_668600.html

Not good news.
Earlier coverage of the contamination at other sewage treatment plants in the vicinity of the accident site here:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/now-radioactive-sewage-sludge-from.html#comments
The contamination measured in those sites near to Fukushima was about 30,000 bequerels of cesium per kg of waste, rising to about 10x that in the residual ash left after burning the sludge. So the contamination measured here has only dropped by about a factor of 2 despite the increased distance. Clearly the hope that airborne emissions would be efficiently diluted as they disperse has been disappointed.
Sewage is an excellent indicator of the overall level of pollutants and is routinely used for that purpose, for instance to monitor urban drug use. These data indicate that the radiation contamination from Fukushima is already so widespread that it is doubtful whether the Japanese authorities have any options other than to increase the allowable contamination levels for foodstuffs and construction material.

Danuta

May15-11, 05:09 PM

etudiant

May15-11, 05:40 PM

Perchance this sheds a little more light on why TEPCO is behaving the way it's behaving.

The new enervated TEPCO

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110516a1.html

"Tepco's interest-bearing liabilities, including corporate bonds, total more
than ¥7.3 trillion, most of which is owed to insurance companies and financial
institutions, both private and government-owned. The biggest lender is the
Development Bank of Japan, which is 100 percent state-owned. It has lent more
than ¥300 billion to Tepco.

Shortly after the Fukushima plant accidents, major banks committed another
¥2 trillion in credit lines to Tepco, including ¥600 billion from Sumitomo Mitsui
Banking Corp.

Should Tepco go bankrupt, not only would the Japanese financial market be thrown
into an utter chaos, but international markets would lose their trust in Japanese
banking institutions to the extent that the institutions would have to pay higher
interest rates to secure funds.

If worse comes to worst, Tepco share certificates would become worthless sheets
of paper for 600,000 shareholders as well as for many corporate pension funds that
have included Tepco stock in their portfolios. The steep drop in Tepco's stock price has
already dealt a blow to investment funds in the United States. Nearly 20 percent of its
stock is held by non-Japanese investors. This has reportedly led the Obama administration
to urge the Kan government to take steps to prevent a further decline in Tepco stock."

Excellent point.
TEPCO is in a difficult position, serving as the spearcatcher for the Japanese government, exposed to overwhelming costs and liabilities, with only a promise of some government support for the eventual compensation payments.
The company has not the resources, financially, managerially or technically to cope adequately with a disaster of this magnitude. However, the problem is so bad that there is no clear reason for the government to step in and take charge. It would raise costs but not get more accomplished, afaik.
The center of Japan is already seriously contaminated and the reactors are scrap.
Admittedly, Michio Ishikawa of the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute has forcefully argued for a much more aggressive approach, but he may have changed his view in light of the disclosure that reactor 1 was entirely lost within a day of the disaster. Now that the reactors are lost, the problem becomes a vast and painful cleanup, which will leave Japan permanently scarred. The political leadership will try to ensure that that can remains tied to TEPCO. The money is a tertiary concern.

jlduh

May15-11, 06:10 PM

hopefully not something bad again...

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/05/91196.html

Hummm, no, nothing serious, just 400 tons of seawater found in N°5 reactor coolant of Hamaoka plant!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/16_03.html

In the course of shutdown, plant operator Chubu Electric Power Company found impure substances in coolant water at the No.5 reactor.

The company reports damage to a duct connected to a condenser, a system that turns the steam generated by a nuclear reactor to water through the use of seawater.
Chubu Electric Power Company says 400 tons of seawater may be mixed into the cooling water that goes through the reactor.

It says 400 tons would not severely affect the reactor, and that no radioactive substances were detected outside the building.

But in order to prevent the reactor being eroded by seawater, the operator will take measures to remove salt from the cooling water.

They should ask Tepco which has a good know how of cooling reactor with seawater...

Damn, they were saying that theses plants didn't endure damages during earthquake... Might not be exactly the case?

Danuta

May15-11, 06:21 PM

... The political leadership will try to ensure that that can remains tied to TEPCO. The money is a tertiary concern.

Yup, you are right, the can remains tied till the last hours. But methinks TEPCO is doomed already (KABOOM). It has
over 90 billion bucks in debt(that's from a month ago) and around 30 billion in equity buffer. Nationalization is on the
horizon. It's just too big a company to let tank. Then Japan can hit up the US for money owed to further finance the
stoppage and cleanup of the ongoing nuke disaster.

jlduh

May15-11, 06:36 PM

An other interesting article about the "Whistleblower Who Shutdown 17 Nuclear Reactors in Japan" (including recently published video of interview)

http://criticality.org/2011/05/whistleblower-shutdown-17-nuclear-reactors/

Danuta

May15-11, 06:40 PM

Danuta

May15-11, 06:54 PM

Hummm, no, nothing serious, just 400 tons of seawater found in N°5 reactor coolant of Hamaoka plant!

Em, #5 is a BWR? Yeah, yeah, no problemo with the injection of a little seawater:mad:. So the real reason they shut Hamaoka
down is due to earthquake damage necessitating almost trashing(if not trashing) reactor #5 with seawater, and not the sudden
concern over underestimated risk and peoples' welfare. God but these guys positively stink at spin doctoring too.

etudiant

May15-11, 10:15 PM

Yup, you are right, the can remains tied till the last hours. But methinks TEPCO is doomed already (KABOOM). It has
over 90 billion bucks in debt(that's from a month ago) and around 30 billion in equity buffer. Nationalization is on the
horizon. It's just too big a company to let tank. Then Japan can hit up the US for money owed to further finance the
stoppage and cleanup of the ongoing nuke disaster.

Your opinion is clearly shared.
The Japanese National Policy Minister Koichiro Genba just said publicly that TEPCO 'may not survive as is'.
Link here: http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011051600073

Danuta

May15-11, 11:53 PM

Your opinion is clearly shared.
The Japanese National Policy Minister Koichiro Genba just said publicly that TEPCO 'may not survive as is'.
Link here: http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011051600073

So it seems.

Somewhere in the middle of this are some very angry Japanese banksters threatening
to refuse any future loans to TEPCO after Edano's hint, hint, ah, bold suggestion, that
said banksters waive all of TEPCO's present loans.

But, well, nationalization after the bankruptcy would solve that "future loans" obstacle
too. (And quite frankly, who really gives a hoot about banksters losing any money.)

We shall see how it all plays out.

Bank chiefs unsettled by Edano's remarks over TEPCO
http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5146869/update1-bank-chiefs-unsettled-by-edano-s-remarks-over-tepco

"The heads of major banking groups did not hide their discomfort on Friday at
remarks by the government's top spokesman suggesting banks lending to the
embattled Tokyo Electric Power Co. (OOTC:TKECY) should forgive their debt and
help the utility pay compensation over the crisis at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant.

Loans extended to Tokyo Electric, known as TEPCO, by SMFG, Mizuho and other
big banks amount to around 4 trillion yen, including 1.9 trillion yen in emergency
loans offered after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

''We have lent to TEPCO, considering the significant role it plays for the interest
of Japanese society,'' a senior official at a major bank said, complaining about
Edano's comments.

In the event of debt forgiveness, the official added, any loans to TEPCO must
be categorized as nonperforming and this could make it rather difficult for banks
to extend additional loans to the company."

jlduh

May16-11, 03:25 AM

It seems that more governors start to be pretty angry about the principle retained by government of the basic circular evacuation zones and want more "fine tuning" forecast through SPEEDI system:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/16_11.html

Shiga Prefecture in western Japan is one of the prefectures that has asked for the radiation forecast system. It lies 13 kilometers from a nuclear power plant in neighboring Fukui Prefecture.

Shiga Governor Yukiko Kada says it is unreasonable to draw up evacuation plans simply based on the distance from nuclear power plants. She says such plans should be studied based on data the system provides.

Kyoto Prefecture, also neighboring Fukui, has decided to expand the scope of its disaster preparedness plan to cover areas 20 kilometers from the power plant in Fukui.

All things some of us already mentionned and criticized in the last weeks here, by the way...

The problem is: time and deposits going on, data will soon reveal to either evacuate or... just absorb more and more doses as "no short term improvement" is foreseen at the plant (to say it in a politically correct manner...)

jlduh

May16-11, 05:39 AM

pdObq

May16-11, 11:06 PM

I wanted to mention here this documentary that was made by a famous documentarist, Adam Curtis, whose films have been widely shown and awarded especially at the BBC (more on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html

very interesting because it goes back to old times and history of BWR reactors and GE...

Wow, thanks for that link, that documentary is kind of disturbing (although it's not really surprising that much blame goes to business and sales people).

One thought during watching: It would not seem terribly unfair if GE (or GE-Hitachi) had to pay its share in the whole mess. After all, they designed those reactors and sold them to TEPCO, almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks.

Just for comparison (although possibly not quite comparable):

Toyota had to pay and its image got damaged just because some "operators" mixed up the accelerator with the break pedal.

"BP" Oil Spill: So far BP is getting all the blame, but how about Transocean who owned the platform and did the work, how about Haliburton who (likely) did a poor cementing job, how about the company that built the blowout preventer? IMHO they all should pay their share depending on how much they are able to contribute without going bankrupt.

gmax137

May17-11, 01:11 PM

... It would not seem terribly unfair if GE (or GE-Hitachi) had to pay its share in the whole mess. After all, they designed those reactors and sold them to TEPCO, almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks.

Source, please?

Oh, almost certainly there is no source.

pdObq

May17-11, 03:38 PM

Source, please?

Oh, almost certainly there is no source.

:confused: Source?? I guess that would be me, as I wrote that was a thought I had while watching that documentary...

Did you watch it? One could probably make a list of the actual sources shown in the documentary (studies and interviews). It's pre Fukushima-crisis, though, so there is no information about the history of TEPCO or the plant in there. However there is about GE and its BWR design.

jlduh

May17-11, 03:44 PM

Don't preclude to quickly that there are none :wink:

Sorry if it isn't a pure source (peer review article etc.) but at least this is an article that summarizes the history of mark I containment and some old studies (not sure they are available on the net anyway) which made this design very controversial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html

Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested that the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.

See also this document hyperlinked in the article, which criticizes the technology used by GE in order to reduce size of containment and ultimately cost:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/hanauer.pdf

And you have also an interesting page, PAGE 63, in this document, where are compared the abilities of different containments to absorb a sudden Hydrogen production from Zr oxydation, and Mark I is far behind the other ones (high percents of H2 inside the containment are reached much quicker, increasing risks of explosion...)

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/fukushima/ShepherdFukushima30April2011.pdf

I don't have access to all the documents behind this article of the NY times but in the mega trial that will follow this desaster, no doubt that there will be a cascade of responsabilities that will be debated (long and hard anyway!) and that Tepco will mayb be tempted to sue GE and maybe other subcontractors to share the burden of responsabilities, as anyway this history exist and that some documents may be available...

Meanwhile, the article precise that "G.E.’s liability would seem limited in Japan — largely because the regulatory system in that country places most liability on the plant operator".

Also, these reactors have been through some retrofit to improve the flaws but it is unclear right now which ones are implemented at Daichi (the hardened venting seems part of this, also some deflectors in the torus, but still retrofit has its limits of course...)

Anyway, this will be a VERY COMPLEX trial (a bunch of different trials in fact), as an expert for courts, with some experience in this kind of technical debate, i can assure you that!

By the way it seems the first ones (of a long list...) to claim compensation from Tepco will be the farmers:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_33.html

Farmers in Fukushima Prefecture plan to demand about 5.5 million dollars in damages from TEPCO over radioactive contamination from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

32 agricultural groups decided at a meeting in Fukushima City on Tuesday that they will make the demand to Tokyo Electric Power Company on May 27th. It will be their first compensation claim.

Danuta

May17-11, 06:33 PM

I don't have access to all the documents behind this article of the NY times but in the mega trial that will follow this desaster, no doubt that there will be a cascade of responsabilities that will be debated (long and hard anyway!) and that Tepco will mayb be tempted to sue GE and maybe other subcontractors to share the burden of responsabilities, as anyway this history exist and that some documents may be available...

Meanwhile, the article precise that "G.E.’s liability would seem limited in Japan — largely because the regulatory system in that country places most liability on the plant operator".

Couldn't seem like a better time for a certain law revision.

Laws revised to make it easier to sue foreign firms in Japan
Thursday 28th April 2011
http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/laws-revised-to-make-it-easier-to-sue-foreign-firms-in-japan

"Legal revisions to enable consumers to file lawsuits against foreign companies more easily in Japan were approved Thursday by a majority of lawmakers in the House of Representatives.

With the approval, consumers and workers will be able to file suits against foreign firms with Japanese courts, in principle, if their residence addresses are in Japan.

The enactment of the revised Code of Civil Procedure and the revised Civil Preservation Law will also allow Japanese courts to deal with legal cases if defendant foreign firms have their main offices in Japan or if their representatives live in Japan.

Until now, there was no domestic law governing the jurisdiction of civil litigation involving parties belonging to Japan and other countries, thus Japanese courts had to handle those suits on a case-by-case basis, based on precedents.

The legal revisions were made to stipulate under what kind of circumstances Japanese courts can have jurisdiction amid an increasing number of problems involving transactions through the Internet and employment contracts between people in Japan and foreign firms."

gmax137

May17-11, 09:10 PM

Thanks for those links, jlduh, the hanauer memo especially is interesting (as is typical of his work). But I don't see how AEC debating the merits of the pressure suppression containment designs shows that the weaknesses of the design were some secret closely guarded by GE. Further, the issues discussed by hanauer don't really address what seems to have happened at fukusima -- namely h2 explosions in the secondary containment.

pdObq

May17-11, 11:33 PM

One thought during watching: It would not seem terribly unfair if GE (or GE-Hitachi) had to pay its share in the whole mess. After all, they designed those reactors and sold them to TEPCO, almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks.
Source, please?
Oh, almost certainly there is no source.
Did you watch it? One could probably make a list of the actual sources shown in the documentary (studies and interviews). It's pre Fukushima-crisis, though, so there is no information about the history of TEPCO or the plant in there. However there is about GE and its BWR design.

jlduh, thanks for the backup :wink:!

gmax137, I suppose you were offended a bit by the "almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks". I mean, you probably don't want to debate about that GE designed the reactors, nor about that GE (and later GE-Hitachi AFAIK) sold them to TEPCO?

I was looking for a transcript of that documentary, but I couldn't find anything so far. However, Adam Curtis (who made it for BBC back in 1992) puts it into the context of the Fukushima accidents in his blog entry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html) that jlduh found in his post above. So, let me quote Mr Curtis (with some highlighting by me):

The film shows that from very early on - as early as 1964 - US government officials knew that there were serious potential dangers with the design of the type of reactor that was used to build the Fukushima Daiichi plant. But that their warnings were repeatedly ignored.

[...]

Those early plants in America were the Boiling Water Reactors. And that is the very model that was used to build the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Three of them were supplied directly by General Electric.

In 1966 the US government Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards tried to force the industry to redesign their containment structures to make them safer. But the chairman of the committee claims in the film that General Electric in effect refused.

And in 1971 the Atomic Energy Commission did a series of tests of Emergency Core Cooling systems. Accidents were simulated. In each case the emergency systems worked - but the water failed to fill the core. Often being forced out under pressure.

As one of the AEC scientists says in the film: "We discovered that our theoretical calculations didn't have a strong correlation with reality. But we just couldn't admit to the public that all these safety systems we told you about might not do any good"

And again the warnings were ignored by senior members of the Agency and the industry.

That was the same year that the first of the Fukushima Daiichi plant's reactors came online. Supplied by General Electric.

There are more interviews and references to studies in the film itself, in which IIRC is stated that a) they knew their plants were not as safe as possible quite early on, b) they were trying to make it a profitable business (since they had spent already so much money on the technology that they could not go back any more), so they had to sell plants at the lowest possible prices to be competitive with fossile fuel plants, which lead to safety compromises.

So, common sense tells me, that in order to do b), you don't tell your potential customers about a), at least not in any honest way (Just think about used car dealers...). Because if you did they just would not buy it. Probably the TEPCO people really were convinced that it was a safe technology (maybe even the GE sales people were!), but of course there is no easily available source for that either :rolleyes:.

In terms of responsibility, maybe those law suits agaist the tobacco industry in the US are more related to this case, in the sense of "But you told us it was safe..."

Well, we'll see what's going to happen regarding possible law suits against GE.

jlduh

May18-11, 03:32 AM

I was ready to answer to GMAX137 but I think you summarized pretty well pdObq what would have been my answer.

There are a lot of information in this documentary and I'm sure that there are documents behind to support what the guys interviewed in the documentary are saying. Most were "insiders" at this time with responsabilities in various organisations, and that's the force of the film. They are talking freely because they are much older, or even very old, and no more implied in the business! Also the film is not one based on sensationalism after the Fukushima accident, this documentary is from 1992, so its interest is just being rediscovered in light with the Fukushima disaster.

The dates mentioned in the video seem to pretty well correlate with the possibility that at the date of building Fukushima plant was started to be built in 1967, so at this date, based on some of the dates mentionned in Adam CURTIS site (1966), the discussions between american regulators and GE about redesign demands and flaws of the primary design, already occurred, but as you said it is very probable that the japanese weren't informed of that (the Hanauer document is from a later date, September 1972, so one year after the start of reactor N°1 at Fukushima).

So yes, it can be said with some reason that it has "probably" been kept secret at this date to Japanese buyers.

Something else to mention to explain what the documentary is showing very well -the fact that in this era, some countries were rushing in a race to be the first, and that safety was NOT AT ALL the primary concern- is that, in addition to the "make money" reason, there was as second reason why these leading countries wanted to build a profitable civil nuclear industry: the race they were involved in was also a military one, and as i mentionned already in some previous posts, they needed PLUTONIUM in larger quantities for the bombs and missiles... And one way to get it was through civil reactors, where PU is a byproduct of the nuclear fission in used cores. This is a know fact that civil nuclear birth happened as a close brother of military nuclear.

All of this old history is resurging with the Fukushima disaster, which scares a little bit the nuclear industry IMO...

It very premature to know IF there will be a juridic battle on this, it depends closely of the behind the screen relations that are currently taking place between governments and various interests. Personally i would be very surprised if this would happen, but we'll see. Don't forget that Tepco is or will be in a short future almost nationalized (and at least very dependent of state funding...) so the game will be decided at high level with strategical things on the table.

zapperzero

May19-11, 03:56 AM

Here's a nice example of regulator capture
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/108.html

Executive summary:

The NRC is telling the industry "There was this safety rule that was supposed to prevent the pressure suppression pool from cracking, but we're going to go ahead and waive it because, umm, if we do you'll save some money on unplanned outages. So yeah."

Before you ask, yes, I know the NRC is regulating American plants, but the industry is global and "lessons learned/ best practices" have an amazing tendency to spread.

tsutsuji

May19-11, 05:24 AM

Asahi is asking :
A column on "the current status," which existed in the initial timetable released in April, is not present in the revised timetable released May 17.

Could the company have been reluctant to change the former phrase "partial damage to fuel" to "core meltdown"?

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105180362.html

Yomiuri is proposing :

The government should encourage the development and practical application of robots and other sophisticated remote-control technologies that could be used in such places. If technologies developed by universities and manufacturers are used in tandem at the accident site, work to stabilize the reactors will be accelerated. In addition, it will improve the nation's technological capability in this field.

The government also should set up a contact point where a wide spectrum of people can submit ideas so expertise from Japan and abroad could be harnessed to bring the crisis under control.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110518004597.htm

Tsuneo Futami, former superintendent of the plant, from 1997 to 2000 told IEEE Spectrum :
I think we should never discharge highly contaminated water to the ocean, because there is no border in seawater.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/the-scale-of-the-accident-was-beyond-my-imagination

, which leaves open the question of discharging "low contaminated" water into the Ocean.

The Japanese government's envoy to South Korea, Oriza Hirata, said to his South Korean audience that the seawater discharge was a request of the US government : http://jp.ibtimes.com/articles/18754/20110517/1305641051.htm. That statement was then rebutted by Yukio Edano and Goshi Hosono, and Oriza Hirata finally retracted and apologized : http://www.j-cast.com/2011/05/18095925.html?p=all

gmax137

May20-11, 12:20 PM

jlduh

May21-11, 03:13 PM

Did workers at Fukushima ingested much more than what has been measured and announced?

I cross reference this post on the other thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3314875&postcount=7933

Whoa, NISA comes clean about isotope ingestion resulting in considerable exposures to thousands who were involved early on at Dai-ichi.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110521p2a00m0na021000c.html

Some dose calculations these poor guys got, or are expected to get:

http://www.falloutphilippines.blogspot.com/

I always suspected that they were understating potential exposures, but i still find this a bit unsettling. Information is constantly subject to change out of the Japanese agencies, and most often, for the worse.

Drakkith, could you explain us how this is possible with what you asserted some pages ago when we were discussing the assessment of internal exposures?

Nuceng, if I quote your answer to my question:

Originally Posted by jlduh
thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

Nuceng: Yes, IF they are doing it correctly

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3298312&postcount=98

do you conclude that "they didn't do it properly" for these many workers?

And if the answer confirms this, what are the implications for the other citizens around in exposed areas?

Please don't consider my comment as personal attacks, but I, as many other people, would like do understand all those apparent important contradictions between communications and facts and reality...

Luca Bevil

May21-11, 05:10 PM

Drakkith

May22-11, 02:04 AM

Drakkith, could you explain us how this is possible with what you asserted some pages ago when we were discussing the assessment of internal exposures?

Could you elaborate? Did I say or imply somewhere that it was impossible for that to happen? I went back several pages, but I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly.

jlduh

May22-11, 03:25 AM

Could you elaborate? Did I say or imply somewhere that it was impossible for that to happen? I went back several pages, but I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly.

Well, we were discussing the fact that the officials (government, Tepco, etc.) were only communicating with measurements in mS/h or mSv to set the limits over which it was considered to be safe for the various people involved (citizens, children, workers, etc.).

Some of us were saying that this was an oversimplification because it could not take into account all the specific factors especially all the ones related to what the individuals would ingest by inhalation, food, drink...

For Tepco workers, until now, we only heard about the facts that the doses they got was below a certain level (250mSv) and that consequently, except for 2 or 3 isolated cases, everything was safe for them.

But now, it seems (but I'm sure that we will have more infos on that in the future) that their internal contamination could be also a problem...

My question is concerning this apparent contradiction: the readings (i guess based on their dosimeters) were under the limits but they may be internally more contaminated than expected?

One (partial) explanation could be that as we know, the first workers in the plant, during one months, didn't have all a dosimeter because Tepco didn't have enough (which is in itself criminal), and that they had one for two based on what Tepco finally recognized.

But, is it the only explanation or is it link also to the way the limits and measurements are set, not assessing the specificities of internal contamination from the various isotopes?

Drakkith

May22-11, 07:23 AM

My question is concerning this apparent contradiction: the readings (i guess based on their dosimeters) were under the limits but they may be internally more contaminated than expected?

I believe that is true.

But, is it the only explanation or is it link also to the way the limits and measurements are set, not assessing the specificities of internal contamination from the various isotopes?

The different isotopes will have very different effects on the body depending on which ones they are. The full body measuring thing cannot take this into account, it only measures Full Body Dose I believe. The actual effects could differ greatly from person to person.

Astronuc

May22-11, 09:07 AM

I disagree.
The point being made is about the overall cultural interrelation of civil use of nuclear power and military use.
It is historically true that military use came first, and that the era of first diffusion of civil nuclear plants was also a period of cold war and military weapons proliferation.

The technical fact that a BWR reactor may not be the best reactor to breed military grade plutonium does not undermine, I think, the cultural point being made. The military certainly made use of such an effective energy source. The civilian side wanted to use "atoms for peace" to use the phrase that Eisenhower used. The civilian uses were quite independent of the nuclear weapons program. The civilian power reactors essentially evolved from the naval nuclear propulsion reactors, not nuclear weapons program. There were several Pu production reactors in various countries, and they were different than power reactors. The form in which Pu is produced is different than that used for commercial fuel.

Even recently when IRAN was supposedly building plants for claimed civil use, the international comunity was suspicious to say the least.

By the way if a nation is determined to produce military grade plutonium and can only get his hands on a BWR could it be possible to make a shorter run with a core of fuel just to obtain better chances of extracting military grade plutonium from it ? There is the concern that any nuclear reactor could be used to produce Pu for weapons. One could certainly run a reactor in short cycles if the primary goal is isotope production instead of power. The more frequent the outage, the much lower capacity factor - and isotope production. That's why isotope production reactors are designed to have isotope targets inserted and removed while operating.

I wanted to mention here this documentary that was made by a famous documentarist, Adam Curtis, whose films have been widely shown and awarded especially at the BBC (more on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html

very interesting because it goes back to old times and history of BWR reactors and GE... That's an excellent documentary - and spot on!

tsutsuji

May23-11, 03:14 AM

And if the answer confirms this, what are the implications for the other citizens around in exposed areas?

The opinion developped by Mito Kakizawa at the House of Representatives Budget Committee on May 16th (see http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110521p2a00m0na021000c.html ) is that if no internal contamination surveys are conducted now among the general citizens, it will be more difficult for them to make their case in court, should they suffer from cancer later, years from now. It will be more difficult to assess the causality between NPP troubles and cancer.

Mito Kakizawa had to rely on the data for workers at nuclear power plants because until that day (May 16th) no such internal contamination survey had been performed among the general population.

tsutsuji

May23-11, 05:58 PM

Fukushima prefecture announced the launching in July of a medical survey of 150,000 people from 12 villages and cities around the plant. The long term survey will be conducted over at least a 30 year span, and will study white blood cell count, cancer occurrence and genetic impact. Experts from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences in Chiba will be invited : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPl9pfp13wI

yakiniku

May24-11, 06:52 AM

Below text copied from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/japan-tepco-reactors-idUSL3E7GO04420110524

Some analysts said the delay in confirming the meltdowns at Fukushima suggested the utility feared touching off a panic by disclosing the severity of the accident earlier.

"Now people are used to the situation. Nothing is resolved, but normal business has resumed in places like Tokyo," said Koichi Nakano, a political science professor at Tokyo's Sophia University.

Nakano said that by confirming the meltdowns now, Tepco may be hoping the news will have less impact. The word "meltdown" has such a strong connotation that when the situation was more uncertain more people would likely have fled Tokyo, he said.

jlduh

May24-11, 08:08 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_34.html

Parents demand lower radiation limit for children

A group of parents of school children is calling for lowering the government-set radiation limit for children.The group is from Fukushima Prefecture, where a crippled nuclear power plant is posing the danger of nuclear contamination.On Monday, members of the group visited the education ministry and submitted a petition bearing more than 15,000 signatures.

After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident, the government set the yearly limit for accumulated external radiation for children undertaking outdoor activities at 20 millisieverts.
The parents have been pointing out that the government safety level is too high for children and are demanding that it be lowered to 1 millisievert per year.

[...]

A ministry official admitted that the 20-millisievert yearly level is not necessarily an appropriate limit for children. The official told the group that the ministry wants to consider all possible measures to reduce radiation risk.
Monday, May 23, 2011 21:29 +0900 (JST)

AntonL

May24-11, 08:39 AM

Japan to Set Up Panel to Probe Fukushima Nuclear Accident
http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011052400126

Tokyo, May 24 (Jiji Press)--The Japanese government decided Tuesday to set up an independent panel to probe the ongoing crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s <9501> Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
Yotaro Hatamura, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, will head the panel. Hatamura, 70, is known as the author of "Learning from Failure" and other famous books.
The panel, comprising some 10 members including legal and nuclear experts, is expected to be launched by the end of the month. It will investigate the cause of the nuclear crisis and study ways to prevent similar accidents.
The nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan, was badly damaged by tsunami triggered by the March 11 earthquake, and continues releasing radioactive substances into the environment in the country's worst nuclear accident.

Why does one need legal experts on a panel to probe the accident.

I can think of only one and that is to advise on how to word the report to limit any liabilities resulting from the findings, thus overthrowing the independence of the scientific findings.

zapperzero

May24-11, 11:06 AM

Why does one need legal experts on a panel to probe the accident.

There needs to be a feeling that the accident phase is over. Of course, this is far from true, yet, but no matter. Those who have lied and dissembled and censored news about three nuclear meltdowns surely have no qualms in misleading the public some more.

The other main reason is to set an agenda. It is the findings of the commission that must (and will) be hotly debated, so that other facts may slip by largely ignored. You will see talk about institutional paralysis at TEPCO, about the tsunami and the earthquake and what the prime cause of the accidents was and whether it was beyond design basis or not.

You will NOT see any discussion of regulator capture, design failures, the real costs of the nuclear industry, dual-use technologies, the role of France and Areva, the unholy alliance between Hitachi and GE...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/japan-tepco-reactors-idUSL3E7GO04420110524

Here's the money shot: "<<I am very sorry that the public is mistrustful of the various disclosures made by the government on the accident," Prime Minister Naoto Kan said in parliament on Monday.>>

The trust must be regained.

Bandit127

May24-11, 02:19 PM

It also sits on water's edge. The US Navy was able to provide a barge full of fresh water upon request. It was used without any trouble... only much later. Anyway, the reluctance itself is grounds enough for more than just sarcasm. I'd say some prison terms are in order for those who put their money above public safety.

We should remember that the Tepco engineers that are making the calls are doing so with woefully inadequate data, and what they did get was unreliable.

Data has improved, but is still woefully inadequate for sound and reliable decision making. And making conclusions of what did or didn't happen.

To call for prison terms when management might have been 'optimistic' in interpreting such sparse and unreliable data is short sighted I think. More likely (and quite rightly), they will not make a conclusion with serious consequences until they have sound data to support it.

That is good management. Any other way is speculation to pander to sensationalism.

One of the biggest failures in all of this is the failure of reliable data.

You can't blame Tepco for that, it is a function of the system of reactor design and risk assessment. That system has to improve. We should be fitting transducers, signal processing equipment and transmission in a way that can handle the same level of equipment failure in future.

My guess is that you could cut the total emissions from any possible future accident by half if you did that.

turbo

May24-11, 02:34 PM

You can't blame Tepco for that, it is a function of the system of reactor design and risk assessment. That system has to improve. We should be fitting transducers, signal processing equipment and transmission in a way that can handle the same level of equipment failure in future.

My guess is that you could cut the total emissions from any possible future accident by half if you did that.Not if plant-siting is allowed using the most optimistic (low) tsunami-surge estimates, low sea-walls, and locating emergency equipment and controls within the (overly optimistic) levels that could be flooded. Putting emergency diesel generators, battery banks, control rooms, and other critical systems where they can be flooded is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen. All the extra sensors in the world could not help mitigate such a disaster.

zapperzero

May24-11, 02:44 PM

We should remember that the Tepco engineers that are making the calls are doing so with woefully inadequate data, and what they did get was unreliable.

Data has improved, but is still woefully inadequate for sound and reliable decision making. And making conclusions of what did or didn't happen.

To call for prison terms when management might have been 'optimistic' in interpreting such sparse and unreliable data is short sighted I think. More likely (and quite rightly), they will not make a conclusion with serious consequences until they have sound data to support it.

That is good management. Any other way is speculation to pander to sensationalism.

One of the biggest failures in all of this is the failure of reliable data.

You can't blame Tepco for that, it is a function of the system of reactor design and risk assessment. That system has to improve. We should be fitting transducers, signal processing equipment and transmission in a way that can handle the same level of equipment failure in future.

My guess is that you could cut the total emissions from any possible future accident by half if you did that.

I think you're trolling. Instrumentation matters very little here, if at all.

The laws of physics involved are known and they do not change. Such accidents were being modeled since the seventies, TMI even produced a nice case study to validate the models.

For a given core configuration, where starting parameters (water level, temps, pressures) are known, one can find out if and when the core melts. The process does not take days, for a reactor as big as those at Fukushima. The calculation can be done literally on the back of a napkin by anyone in possession of freshman year physics. So many MW of heat, so much fuel, so many tons of water, so much steel in the vessel that could melt. Easy.

There is no need for further measurements.

Good crisis management is the uncanny ability to make good decisions without having all the data. Take a pilot in a stalled fighter jet with an engine flameout, at low altitude. Does he try to determine the cause of his engine flameout and whether a recovery might be possible?

Smart pilots pull the ejector handle and generally live to find out the results of the post-accident inquiry. Brave pilots try something, anything. Sometimes it works. Bad pilots get confused and flustered trying to decide what to do. Bad pilots end up dead.

SteveElbows

May24-11, 03:07 PM

Smart pilots pull the ejector handle and generally live to find out the results of the post-accident inquiry. Brave pilots try something, anything. Sometimes it works. Bad pilots get confused and flustered trying to decide what to do. Bad pilots end up dead.

This argument seems to be getting political enough to belong in the other thread, but really I have to say something about this point. I do not want people who manage nuclear emergencies to 'try something, anything'. Dealing with nuclear incidents is a complex and sometimes almost impossible balancing act, depending on the exact details, and it is actually possible to do all sorts of things that would make matters worse. So whilst I do not want people to be paralysed by fear that their decisions may make things worse, I dont want them to take certain risks just for the sake of acting.

zapperzero

May24-11, 03:52 PM

This argument seems to be getting political enough to belong in the other thread, but really I have to say something about this point. I do not want people who manage nuclear emergencies to 'try something, anything'. Dealing with nuclear incidents is a complex and sometimes almost impossible balancing act, depending on the exact details, and it is actually possible to do all sorts of things that would make matters worse. So whilst I do not want people to be paralysed by fear that their decisions may make things worse, I dont want them to take certain risks just for the sake of acting.

Me neither. That's why you need smart, even-keeled people in charge of nuclear reactors. Jocks are fine for fighter jets only. They make awful airliner pilots.

jlduh

May24-11, 04:41 PM

some facts:
1. Reactor cooling was shut down manually (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110517x1.html) after the quake and before the tsunami (Tepco should publish their official findings regarding this soon as instructed by NISA)

2. High radiation levels were measured (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110516a3.html) at unit 1 well before the explosion indicating a possible breach in containment caused by earthquake.

So for a change, Gunderson statements are (part) true.

Since day 1, i tried to keep informed about this accident, and i managed to do it, thanks to this forum, pretty well, even if sometimes it's difficult to keep up with all the datas, facts, assumptions, errors, lies, that are around this disaster since the very beginning.

So i think I'm informed on this subject probably 2000% more than most of my french fellows, which have anyway no more info on the Fukushima disaster which has totally disappeared from the radars of the french medias (don't know if it's the case in other countries?).

And even if I'm pretty well informed, I confess it to you, I TOTALLY MISS this info that you mention AntonL: Tepco just admitted one week ago that the containment and the reactor at N°1 Unit was damaged BEFORE tsunami hit! I don't know why and how i missed it, but I missed it... And if i missed it, i think many people in the world may have missed it also (was it the goal?)

A source at Tepco admitted it was possible that key facilities were compromised before the tsunami.

"The quake's tremors may have caused damage to the pressure vessel or pipes," the official said.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has so far said the reactor withstood the shaking and that the unexpectedly large tsunami caused a station blackout, which led to explosions.

So, let's summarize a little bit, in this jungle of information/communication:

1) Since March 11th, Tepco has good reasons to think that the reactor N°1 was damaged by the earthquake, before tsunami hit. BUT: Tepco kept saying that the desaster was only the result of the tsunami and that the installations resisted the earthquake, until one week ago.

2) Tepco only released logs of the parameters from the reactors (since March 11) about 10 days ago. Then they admitted that core N°1 melt very quickly in fact in the first day. BUT: during these two months, Tepco kept saying that N°1 reactor fuel was 70% "damaged", revised 55% some weeks after (!).

3) Once they did this for N°1, Tepco did it again for N°2 and N°3: they just recognized that the cores melt very quickly after tsunami. BUT, during these two months, they kept saying that these cores were "damaged" at a percentage lower than 30 or 40%!

4) For one month, Tepco released various analysis of isotopes (mainly the "big ones": I, Cs mainly, but not the complete list of nucleides that they analyzed). BUT finally they revealed one month after that they were all wrong, because of a software error...

5) At the end of March, Tepco did a complete survey (including additional elements, like Sr for example) of the water inside the basements of each reactor. They announced that they would disclose the results as soon as possible. BUT Tepco released them 2 months after the sampling!

Now the question is: do you really believe we can trust this company?

I was adviced not to criticized Tepco to quickly because "i was not in their shoes".

With all i have seen in the first two months and summarized above (and i didn't mention the lie about the fact that workers were sent on the site with one dosimeter for 2 for several weeks, and I may add some more elements, but let's keep synthetic), i just want to say that I HAVE NO WILL TO JUMP IN THEIR SHOES BECAUSE I REALLY THINK, AND MORE AND MORE, THAT THEIR SHOES STARTS TO HAVE A VERY BAD SMELL...

An other question is deeply in my mind: ok they lied (but they did it before, so is it a surprise?), but did they lie only to the general public or did they lie also to official organisations and government? In other words, what in the list above was known by the government, even we didn't know it?

For example, I'm wondering if KAN knew about this fact concerning N°1 reactor being damaged by the quake (the workers entered the building the 11th of March and got their dosimeters beeping, 300 mSv it seems...) when he arrived at the plant on March 12, being pissed off by the fact that Tepco didn't vent yet?

And as a matter of fact, was it because Tepco management knew already something was already really bad from the containment standpoint that they spent 3 more hours to discuss before venting (or trying to vent)? Were they scared by this venting because of what they knew? Did the government knew it also?

This is a very important point. Because that kind of deliberate lie by not telling what they know or believe to know is kind of criminal when you consider the kind of subjects we are talking about, where the state of a reactor being breeched or not can imply different decisions for safety and health standpoint.

So I'm wondering: they lied, but to whom?

I'm also wondering: what will be their next move? Will they reveal that N°2 and N°3 got also hit by earthquake?

jlduh

May24-11, 06:10 PM

I reply to myself and put an example of lie that becomes obvious when re-reading some news from March 12 on N°1 unit (the web keeps archives fortunately!):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20042410-503543.html

The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), has confirmed that the integrity of the primary containment vessel remains intact.

Ok, so we know that a few hours after the tsunami, March 11, some workers entered the reactor building (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110516a3.html )

Workers entered the No. 1 reactor building during the night to assess the damage only to hear their dosimeter alarms go off a few seconds later, sources at Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. Since they thought the building was filled with highly radioactive steam, the workers decided to evacuate.

Based on the dosimeter readings, the radiation level was about 300 millisieverts per hour, the source said, suggesting that a large amount of radioactive material had already been released from the core.

So Tepco knew this but we have read this sentence in many articles:

The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), has confirmed that the integrity of the primary containment vessel remains intact.

They didn't say that they BELIEVE it's still iintact, or that they think it could be damaged but have to be confirmed. No they CONFIRMED IT WAS INTACT.

There is one word to describe this: this is a LIE. Period.

rowmag

May24-11, 06:37 PM

I'm also wondering: what will be their next move? Will they reveal that N°2 and N°3 got also hit by earthquake?

As a matter of fact, yes, at least for Unit 3. From this morning's paper:

http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201105240733.html

Summary: Unit 3 ECCS (Emergency Core Cooling System?) may have been damaged by the earthquake, before the tsunami arrived.

AntonL

May25-11, 01:21 AM

....

And as a matter of fact, was it because Tepco management knew already something was already really bad from the containment standpoint that they spent 3 more hours to discuss before venting (or trying to vent)? Were they scared by this venting because of what they knew? Did the government knew it also?

This is a very important point. Because that kind of deliberate lie by not telling what they know or believe to know is kind of criminal when you consider the kind of subjects we are talking about, where the state of a reactor being breeched or not can imply different decisions for safety and health standpoint.

So I'm wondering: they lied, but to whom?

I'm also wondering: what will be their next move? Will they reveal that N°2 and N°3 got also hit by earthquake?

Japanese are a nation of honor, they do not lie; however not divulging facts to them is not lying and if not asked directly they will not reveal voluntary. Japanese (as a matter of fact all Asians) in their mentality will aways try and give a better scenario and more pleasing story than actually is. If this mindset is correct for nuclear managers that I doubt very much.

(It is known that co-pilots at Korean Air would say to the captain: "It is fine weather out there today, is it not captain?" actually meaning "Captain, it is dangerous to fly through that massive thunder storm ahead!")

Having said that and noting the resources spent in arranging a close looped cooling system by flooding reactor 1, I can only conclude that the radiation reports of the 11th evening were ignored, not considered or even not known to the planners of unit 1 cooling. Only once their flooding preparation started, only then they noticed things are not as expected which resulted in going through all the available data and brain storming sessions and new insight was found.

zapperzero

May25-11, 08:18 AM

There is one word to describe this: this is a LIE. Period.

Keep a copy of that article.

zapperzero

May25-11, 08:24 AM

So I'm wondering: they lied, but to whom?

To each other, to the public, to the shareholders (you would do well to remember that TEPCO still is a publicly traded company, one that has lost 80% in (shares) value since the beginning of the crisis) and to the international media.

The only truly serious bit is "lying to each other". That has hampered decision-making.

Astronuc

May25-11, 08:52 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_34.html

Parents demand lower radiation limit for children It really is inappropriate to have any radiation exposure limit on children much above background + normal X-rays.

Children 18 and younger should not be exposed to elevated anthropogenic radiation levels beyond those of medical diagnostics. Because of illness or injury, some children may require exposure to radiation (X-rays, CAT-scan, radiotherapy, . . . ) above that of the norm.

When I studied health physics and radiation protection, we learned that children under 18 should not be exposed to elevated levels of radiation.

tsutsuji

May25-11, 06:45 PM

TEPCO is apparently being careful in stating it may have been damaged in the earthquake,

I think you know the technicalities of nuclear power plants much better than I, so if you think that the published data are consistent with the "shut down manually" analysis, I am not going to refute this.

But, from a "more political" perspective, I think that the careful way for Tepco, if some uncertainty is remaining, consists in emphasizing the "Worker error may have led to meltdown" thesis (as the Japan Times title at http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110517x1.html is saying) rather than the "Our NPPs's design can't resist earthquakes" thesis.

It is the same problem as for aircraft manufacturers whenever an airliner disaster occurs. It is better and "more careful" for them to assume that the pilot made a mistake than to assume that their design is wrong. In the first case they don't have anything to do. In the other case they have to recall all their airliners and apply retrofits to all of them. The second hypothesis is more costly.

Oops, that is right! Great point. They had cooling and AC power and expected to be able to control cooldown.
Also, generally speaking, earthquakes are something "normal" in Japan :

According to the JMA earthquake catalogues, over 100 thousand events have been recorded in every year, which roughly means that we have about 300 earthquakes per day in Japan.
http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/eew/abs/20100910Abstract_YAMAMOTO.pdf

sp2

May25-11, 08:46 PM

Japanese are a nation of honor, they do not lie; however not divulging facts to them is not lying and if not asked directly they will not reveal voluntary. Japanese (as a matter of fact all Asians) in their mentality will aways try and give a better scenario and more pleasing story than actually is. If this mindset is correct for nuclear managers that I doubt very much.

(It is known that co-pilots at Korean Air would say to the captain: "It is fine weather out there today, is it not captain?" actually meaning "Captain, it is dangerous to fly through that massive thunder storm ahead!")

Having said that and noting the resources spent in arranging a close looped cooling system by flooding reactor 1, I can only conclude that the radiation reports of the 11th evening were ignored, not considered or even not known to the planners of unit 1 cooling. Only once their flooding preparation started, only then they noticed things are not as expected which resulted in going through all the available data and brain storming sessions and new insight was found.

Anyone with extensive experience of Japanese people and culture know that this idea

<<Japanese are a nation of honor, they do not lie>> is utter nonsense.

They lie all the time --just like every other people on Earth. They just work harder at spinning it, and rationalizing it, so they can pretend to themselves and each other that they're *not* lying.
The simple truth of 'saving face' is that it's all *about* lying.

AFAICT, the greatest effect of this tradition is that it tends to make bad problems worse, and more difficult to fix.

Fukushima, TEPCO, the regulators, and the Japanese government have given us so many prime examples of this effect in the last few months that it might be absurdly funny --if it weren't so utterly tragic.

rowmag

May25-11, 10:27 PM

Also, generally speaking, earthquakes are something "normal" in Japan :
According to the JMA earthquake catalogues, over 100 thousand events have been recorded in every year, which roughly means that we have about 300 earthquakes per day in Japan.
http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/eew/abs...t_YAMAMOTO.pdf

Sure, though this was not a normal one. I can easily imagine the operators being in a state of confusion as to which procedures to follow, which instruments to trust, not knowing what's broken, etc. Especially being on the coast with tsunami warnings coming in.

ThomS

May26-11, 12:10 AM

NUCENG

May26-11, 12:44 AM

I think you know the technicalities of nuclear power plants much better than I, so if you think that the published data are consistent with the "shut down manually" analysis, I am not going to refute this.

But, from a "more political" perspective, I think that the careful way for Tepco, if some uncertainty is remaining, consists in emphasizing the "Worker error may have led to meltdown" thesis (as the Japan Times title at http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110517x1.html is saying) rather than the "Our NPPs's design can't resist earthquakes" thesis.

It is the same problem as for aircraft manufacturers whenever an airliner disaster occurs. It is better and "more careful" for them to assume that the pilot made a mistake than to assume that their design is wrong. In the first case they don't have anything to do. In the other case they have to recall all their airliners and apply retrofits to all of them. The second hypothesis is more costly.

Also, generally speaking, earthquakes are something "normal" in Japan :

TEPCO should never get away with blaming this on the reactor operator.

First, Isolation of the Isolation Condenser only applies to Unit 1. Units 2,3, and 4 are also significantly damagesd, and there may have been some damage to units 5 and 6 as well. Second, I have found clear evidence that Japan had not considered geological evidence and even historical earthquakes and tsunamies. That poor operator was following his guidance in accordance with his or her training, procedures, and the information available. Because there was a single point failure (tsunami) the operator was set up to fail.

Only in 2008 did Japan finally reevaluate seismic risk at the plants and then, for reasons totally inconceivable, they ignored tsunami risk which was available and actually discussed by one of their science consultants. That is a management failure, and engineering failure, and a regulatory failure. Add in the Fukuoka condenser tube failure, Kashiwazaki Kariwa, earthquake damage, Tokaimura criticality event, resistance to Probabilistic Risk Analysis, TEPCO coverups of test data, and possible collusion between industry and regulatory agencies, and it makes me wonder if they have just been lucky until the last couple of years. I have just started reading about the history of problems at the Monju breeder reactor.

As to your airline reference, Air France is apparently ready to toss their pilots under the bus (if they can recover the bodies) because they were unable to find the right answer while they were experiencing multiple alarms and control failures they had not been trained on. This forum can help ensure that doesn't happen in the Fukushima Daiichi case.

NUCENG

May26-11, 02:04 AM

Sure, though this was not a normal one. I can easily imagine the operators being in a state of confusion as to which procedures to follow, which instruments to trust, not knowing what's broken, etc. Especially being on the coast with tsunami warnings coming in.
And imagine being on watch while tsunami waters are destroying your car, threatening to collapse the building you are in, and wondering if you still have a home or whether your family got to high ground in time. Not to mention that one of your colleagues is stuck in a crane and probably injured severely, but you can't get to him. Then you count noses and find out two other workers are missing,

rowmag

May26-11, 03:03 AM

Earthquakes are everyday here - definitely. Generally speaking, people "feel" safer here if there is a small shaker regularly. Specifically, once or twice every 1-2 weeks and strong enough to gently sway one's chair (say Shindo 2 or little 3). In general, when we haven't had an earthquake like above in a while, people begin to worry and wonder if a big one is near.

There is a qualitative difference between a Shindo 2 or 3, and a Shindo 6 or 7. The latter is more akin to being in a car wreck: adrenaline, daze, you try to be logical and think you are, but in retrospect realize you were just lucky with the decisions you end up making (or not, as the case may be). Plus the factors NUCENG mentioned, in this case.

Which, on reflection, means humans should ideally not have to be counted on to handle an emergency shut-down. How well could the plant have shut itself down automatically once the SCRAM signal was sent by the seismic interlock, if the operators had been incapacitated, and assuming no power loss, or earthquake or tsunami damage to the plant itself?

NUCENG

May26-11, 03:33 AM

There is a qualitative difference between a Shindo 2 or 3, and a Shindo 6 or 7. The latter is more akin to being in a car wreck: adrenaline, daze, you try to be logical and think you are, but in retrospect realize you were just lucky with the decisions you end up making (or not, as the case may be). Plus the factors NUCENG mentioned, in this case.

Which, on reflection, means humans should ideally not have to be counted on to handle an emergency shut-down. How well could the plant have shut itself down automatically once the SCRAM signal was sent by the seismic interlock, if the operators had been incapacitated, and assuming no power loss, or earthquake or tsunami damage to the plant itself?

I used to joke that the first step in emergency operating procedures should be to shoot all the operators. TMI2 and Chernobyl were made worse by operator actions that defeated automatic protection systems. Unfortunately the automatic protection systems are never intended to deal with severe accidents because they are beyond the design basis by definition. Containment venting, adding boron, using fire systems to inject water, bringing in alternative generators and repairing offsite power were all manual actions beyond the capability of the automatic systems.

rowmag

May26-11, 03:47 AM

Unfortunately the automatic protection systems are never intended to deal with severe accidents because they are beyond the design basis by definition. Containment venting, adding boron, using fire systems to inject water, bringing in alternative generators and repairing offsite power were all manual actions beyond the capability of the automatic systems.

Ok, then suppose it had just been a Shindo 4 -- enough to trip the interlock, say, but not enough to do any damage? (But let's suppose it somehow creates a nitrogen leak in the control room or something that knocks out the operators.) Could the system bring itself safely down unassisted?

Drakkith

May26-11, 03:58 AM

Ok, then suppose it had just been a Shindo 4 -- enough to trip the interlock, say, but not enough to do any damage? (But let's suppose it somehow creates a nitrogen leak in the control room or something that knocks out the operators.) Could the system bring itself safely down unassisted?

I thought that the automatic systems were the ones that immediately shut down the reactors when the quake was detected?

NUCENG

May26-11, 04:17 AM

I thought that the automatic systems were the ones that immediately shut down the reactors when the quake was detected?

Generally there are automated systems to control reactivity (scram), isolate leakage (PCIS), initiate reactor water level control (ECCS), RPV pressure control (SRVs and ADS), and supply power (batteries and diesel generators and pneumatic systems). These systems take the plant to a hot shutdown status. Safely taking the plant from there to cold shutdown requires operator action.

Drakkith

May26-11, 05:46 AM

Generally there are automated systems to control reactivity (scram), isolate leakage (PCIS), initiate reactor water level control (ECCS), RPV pressure control (SRVs and ADS), and supply power (batteries and diesel generators and pneumatic systems). These systems take the plant to a hot shutdown status. Safely taking the plant from there to cold shutdown requires operator action.

Ah ok.

rowmag

May26-11, 06:56 AM

Thanks, NUCENG. So it should hold for a few hours at least until the operators are needed?

andybwell

May26-11, 12:21 PM

Anyone with extensive experience of Japanese people and culture know that this idea

<<Japanese are a nation of honor, they do not lie>> is utter nonsense.

They lie all the time --just like every other people on Earth. They just work harder at spinning it, and rationalizing it, so they can pretend to themselves and each other that they're *not* lying.
The simple truth of 'saving face' is that it's all *about* lying.

AFAICT, the greatest effect of this tradition is that it tends to make bad problems worse, and more difficult to fix.

Fukushima, TEPCO, the regulators, and the Japanese government have given us so many prime examples of this effect in the last few months that it might be absurdly funny --if it weren't so utterly tragic.

Why is it that Fukushima and fallout risk/data is not on any national news on TV?

"We have a Supreme court that has given the "corporation" status equal and greater than the ordinary citizen. GE and Comcast are partners in NBC...and certainly all media companies need chips and other technology from Hitachi and Toshiba, the corporate connections are everywhere."
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3118

andybwell

May26-11, 12:34 PM

Why is it that Fukushima and fallout risk/data is not on any national news on TV?

"We have a Supreme court that has given the "corporation" status equal and greater than the ordinary citizen. GE and Comcast are partners in NBC...and certainly all media companies need chips and other technology from Hitachi and Toshiba, the corporate connections are everywhere."
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3118

"Stochastic effects are those that occur by chance. Stochastic effects caused by
ionizing radiation consist primarily of genetic effects and cancer. As the dose to an
individual increases, the probability that cancer or a genetic effect will occur also
increases. However, at no time, even for high doses, is it certain that cancer or
genetic damage will result. Similarly, for stochastic effects, there is no threshold
dose below which it is relatively certain that an adverse effect cannot occur."

Truly terrifying.

http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-manuals/em385-1-80/c-3.pdf

tsutsuji

May27-11, 06:02 AM

A long and detailed Asahi article on the impact of top-level US-Japan diplomacy on Fukushima decision making : http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105200150.html

jlduh

May27-11, 08:51 AM

new picture of unit 3 with iaea team: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110527_3.jpg
On the left we can see 2nd fuel machine, and big crane in center

One is Philippe Jamet, Head, Division of Nuclear Installation Safety at IAEA.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/safety/npp/jamet/index.html

By the way everything he is saying in this video is a premonition, several month before, of what occurred at Fukushima...

The analysis is perfect. Not sure the actions were (or will be) as effective.

andybwell

May27-11, 08:54 AM

SWITZERLAND!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/13556283

turi

May27-11, 09:06 AM

SWITZERLAND!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/13556283
Uh, that's just the government. Parliament will discuss this too and then it's quite certain that there will be referendums and initiatives to be decided by the citizens. Quite possible that the voters will approve a plan to phase out nuclear energy, but it's certainly too early to say.

zapperzero

May27-11, 04:20 PM

Here's a new political angle for you to chew on: the summer winds are blowing towards China.

AntonL

May27-11, 05:47 PM

new picture of unit 3 with iaea team: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110527_3.jpg

Can someone please explain to me the added value of this huge IAEA teem in Japan. They said their study will be based on data provided by TEPCO, they are not collecting anything of their own. To my mind the IAEA delegation is nothing more than a international show at great cost to the international community and host.

Looking at the IAEA site and at their Flickr gallery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/sets/72157626815913418/) I have the impression it is a Mike Weightman promotion, we see MW in many poses and picture always titled "MW this and that" but all other team members do not have names. Oops, sorry I am being unfair to Greg Webb who operated the camera and is mentioned in small print.

Analysing IAEA latest report (my comments added):

The IAEA's Fact-Finding Mission in Japan visited the tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on 27 May 2011, the final site visit of the team's programme to identify lessons from the Japanese nuclear accident that could help improve global nuclear safety.
what the team did and the justification thereof. Did they learn anything new?

The team's international experts from 12 nations held discussions with top plant operating officials and toured the six-reactor facility.
keeping the top plant operating officials from doing their job, of the 40+ tepco staff possibly only 2 or 3 addressed the meeting
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/5764384174_a3f2de3f5b.jpg

"Visiting Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was a once-in-a-lifetime experience - once in 10 lifetimes, I suspect. Our team left with great admiration for the extraordinary workers who have been undertaking such immensely difficult tasks," said team leader Mike Weightman, the United Kingdom's chief inspector of nuclear installations.
what else should he say after that visit and witnessing the power of nature which man will never tame

Next for the team are continuing discussions with Japanese officials from a variety of agencies as part of an exchange of technical data that will assist the mission in drafting its report, which will be presented to the Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety at IAEA headquarters in Vienna on 20 to 24 June
and wasting more time of Japanese officials and in the end they will repack the data and findings that they received from the Japanese and present it proudly as their own findings. Will there be anything new? No, in my opinon just a rehash what has already been said by various observers and analysts

Without hands-on work no new insight will be obtained!

or am I just being to hard?

Godzilla1985

May27-11, 08:12 PM

Since unit 4 fuel pool fears receded to some extent, reactor 3 is the only likely candidate where images from outside the building could tell us much. And the area of real interest is going to be hard to see unless they actively decide to get a camera closer to that area when lighting conditions are at their best.

Uh, if they can get a camera in the debris-filled spent fuel pool of #3, surely they've already captured the area where the reactor resides on high definition film from just about every angle imaginable and know for a fact whether it's covered or not. TEPCO knows. Everyone else is in the dark. That's another example of a "cover-up", whether for better or worse, no matter how TEPCO would like to redefine it. Maybe they're still a "private" entity in the eyes of the law, but perhaps they should reconsider now that this is a "public" problem of epic proportions.

I mean, c'mon, that Putzmeister dangled a camera right above the spent fuel pool - which is right next to the reactor. They have photos of that whole area. Why haven't they showed them, especially if they're inconclusive?

Go easy on Jim, he's a nice old man who's been around the industry and knows his instruments.

Moderators, feel free to move post to other thread as it's probably more appropriate in the "political" one.

Just one more question: are we 100% sure here that the core resides underneath the crane? That seemed to be the consensus view earlier on (I've read all ~8,000 posts), but is there still any doubt?

Danuta

May28-11, 11:15 AM

Can someone please explain to me the added value of this huge IAEA teem in Japan. They said their study will be based on data provided by TEPCO, they are not collecting anything of their own. To my mind the IAEA delegation is nothing more than a international show at great cost to the international community and host.

Seeing as the IAEA has become nothing more than a bunch of door-to-door nuclear sales people they are probably there to see what nuclear-related "stuff and services" TEPCO will require for the ongoing and future cleanup so as they can hook them up with the right suppier/s.

Sales reps aren't going to collect technical disaster data and re-analyse it. Not their job.

Or, am *I* the one being too hard?

andybwell

May28-11, 01:34 PM

This is a conversation between the WSJ and a senior Japanese Politician that finally tells the truth as he sees it! The underlining is mine.

andybwell

May28-11, 01:34 PM

Here is the relevant conversation by the "retired" politician! The underlining is mine.

By YUKA HAYASHI And TOKO SEKIGUCHI

The following is a partial transcript from The Wall Street Journal Interview with Japan senior political figure Ichiro Ozawa, who is calling on Prime Minister Naoto Kan to step down. Ozawa is a long-time rival within the ruling Democratic Party of Japan and is facing charges of improprieties over his fund-raising organization.

Q: By and large, how would you assess the government's response to the earthquake and nuclear crisis?

A: It's been two months, actually 70 days, but the situation at the nuclear reactors is still out of control.

The Kan administration's handling of the situation has been extremely slow. Their understanding of the gravity of the radioactive contamination has been altogether too rosy, or rather they haven't understood it at all.

The administration hasn't taken the initiative in making decisions and executing policies. Decision-making equals taking responsibility. So if nobody is taking responsibility, nothing is being decided.

Q: Why didn't the Kan administration inform the public of the severity of the problems at the nuclear plants? Did they know?

A: Of course the administration knew.

Q: What could the government have done to prevent the flare-up in the nuclear crisis?

A: First of all, it makes no sense to point fingers at Tepco (plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.), given the current situation. There are a lot of arguments going on, blaming TEPCO, blaming this person and that person. They are all meaningless. There is no point in blaming Tepco. I strongly believe the government must take the leadership and take the initiative in determining what to do. In reality, Tepco is no longer capable of doing anything. (By not facing reality) we are moving toward a tragedy, day by day.

Q: Prime Minister Kan set up a task force and has stationed government officials inside Tepco's offices so they can keep tabs on the company. Is that enough?

A: When Tepco knew what was happening at the nuclear plants, the government must have known it as well. As I said, they can't go on blaming others. The government must take responsibility and take the lead in coming up with solutions.

Q: If you had been in charge, would you have disclosed all the information about the meltdown in the initial stage?

A: Yes. I would have. There is no use in holding back information. We have to decide what to do, based on the premise of the information we have. This problem may be contained in Fukushima for now, but the contamination may spread outside of Fukushima. Anxiety and frustration are growing. People cannot live in the contaminated areas. These areas are becoming uninhabitable. Japan has lost its territory by that much. If we do nothing, even Tokyo could become off limits. There is a huge amount of uranium fuels in the plants, much more than in Chernobyl. This is a terrible situation. The government doesn't tell the truth and people live in a happy-go-lucky...

Q: Mr. Kan seems to have turned to many people for advice. What seems to be the problem?

A: It's not enough. Precisely, it's meaningless to put together a team made up exclusively of people who depend on nuclear power to make a living. All of them are members of the nuclear mafia. Did you see all those scholars saying "the crisis is not so terrible," "won't harm the health at all" on TV? What they say is meaningless because they depend on nuclear power for their livelihood. But people, and the Japanese media, don't understand it. The Japanese media is helpless.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1404555
United States
5/28/2011 2:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

Ichiro Ozawa [link to en.wikipedia.org]
May be not retired but too old to care.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1356602
Canada
5/28/2011 2:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

He's not too old. he simply wants to form the next government.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1404555
United States
5/28/2011 2:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

He's not too old. he simply wants to form the next government.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1356602

I think the immensity of his statement is that he is telling the truth as he sees it in public!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1404665
United States
5/28/2011 2:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

He's not too old. he simply wants to form the next government.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1356602

I think the immensity of his statement is that he is telling the truth as he sees it in public!
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1404555

It takes it out of forums that state "don't believe a dam thing you read here" into msm.

gmax137

May29-11, 03:33 PM

Well I finally had time to view the show, and it was pretty interesting. One thing that continues unabated is the repeated juxtaposition of (admittedly dramatic) weapons test films with discussion of nuclear power. Just because Weinberg and Seaborg et al worked on the Manhattan project doesn't mean that a power plant is a bomb factory. This 'journalistic' fantasy has been a staple of the anti-nuclear-power movement ever since the US and USSR began negotiating down the weapons stockpiles. Many well-meaning people have fallen for this story. See, for example:

... there was as second reason why these leading countries wanted to build a profitable civil nuclear industry: the race they were involved in was also a military one, and as i mentionned already in some previous posts, they needed PLUTONIUM in larger quantities for the bombs and missiles... And one way to get it was through civil reactors, where PU is a byproduct of the nuclear fission in used cores. This is a know fact that civil nuclear birth happened as a close brother of military nuclear.

Nobody has ever used a BWR to produce weapons grade plutonium. Why? Because a BWR is operated for 12 to 18 months between refuelings, and this ensures that the spent fuel contains large amounts of Pu-240 in addition to the Pu-239. If you wanted to make a bomb out of the fuel, you'd need to separate out the 240, a profligate source of neutrons that would ruin any attempt to make a weapon with the material. And, if you have the technology to separate the Pu-240 from the Pu-239, then you can just as well make a uranium bomb and skip the BWR step.

Reactors run to create Pu-239 for bombs are run for short times between refueling, or have the ability to add and remove fuel while operating. To refuel a BWR, you need to remove the vessel closure head, and then remove all of the steam separator/dryer components before you can even see the fuel. There is no connection between a BWR and the weapons.

I disagree.
The point being made is about the overall cultural interrelation of civil use of nuclear power and military use.
It is historically true that military use came first, and that the era of first diffusion of civil nuclear plants was also a period of cold war and military weapons proliferation.

The technical fact that a BWR reactor may not be the best reactor to breed military grade plutonium does not undermine, I think, the cultural point being made.

Even recently when IRAN was supposedly building plants for claimed civil use, the international comunity was suspicious to say the least.

By the way if a nation is determined to produce military grade plutonium and can only get his hands on a BWR could it be possible to make a shorter run with a core of fuel just to obtain better chances of extracting military grade plutonium from it ?

Thanks for the reply, sorry I've been away for a week or so. I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with. Can you amplify / clarify your first paragraph? What do you mean by a 'cultural interrelation'? How is it manifested?

...and that the era of first diffusion of civil nuclear plants was also a period of cold war and military weapons proliferation.

I find this particularly baffling. Is there something about, say, a 1956 Chevy, or a Boeing 707, or Liz Taylor, that embodies the cold war -- just because they share the same time period?

As to the Iran nuclear program, nobody is really concerned if Iran wants to run a nuclear power plant to make electricity. The concern is with the Iranian position - that they want to enrich their own uranium.

And as far as making plutonium with a BWR on a short cycle - I suppose it could be done, but then the plant wouldn't be making much if any electricity; then why build all of the attendant infrastructure (turbines, condensers, generators, electrical switchyards, etc etc). Especially when it is obvious that the unit isn't supplying power to the local grid?

Luca Bevil

May29-11, 04:34 PM

Ok you are right I was cryptic.
What I meant is that in the first phases of nuclear power safety was not a first and foremost concern.

WWII first, then the cold war I think (I was not born then, just trying to extrapolate for my memories as a child in late 60s early 70s) made the public decision makers and society as a whole much more used to extreme risks, in this context the likelyhood of safety accidents in civil plants could have been underestimated even more than in recent days.

where do I get this impression... well for example the fact that the Chicago Pile 1 was built in such a populated area is a sign of both an incomplete perception of the scale of the danger and a society used to extreme risks and death

gmax137

May29-11, 07:42 PM

sono

May30-11, 04:40 AM

A reminder to all of us that it's never wrong to have better damage control equipment and plans, because when the proverbial **** hits the fan, every bit of pre-planning counts. Sadly, irrational decisionmaking and wishful thinking resulted in emergency-suitable robots being phased out 5 years ago:

Five years before the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami triggered the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, Japan's six robots that could venture into a radiation-filled reactor building were consigned to the scrap heap.

The reasons ranged from the uneasiness they caused nuclear plant employees, to the belief that a nuclear power accident could never occur in technologically advanced Japan.

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105260175.html

sono

May30-11, 08:51 AM

in this context the likelyhood of safety accidents in civil plants could have been underestimated even more than in recent days.

You have no idea what kind of cowboy mentality was prevalent in the early years... For a little shocker/introduction, watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElotW9oKv1s

Luca Bevil

May30-11, 12:51 PM

Luca, the chicago pile made 200 watts (http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297). That's the heat output of a medium-large light bulb. And if you don't think Fermi & Zinn et al were concerned with safety, you need to read more on the subject.

Interestingly, the CP-1 led to Argonne national lab (still in Illinois) which (I believe) ran the National Reactor Testing Station out in Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Reactor_Testing_Station). The list of experiments done there (in the quest for reactor safety) is astounding.

Well it seems that we keep on disagreeing but in a very civilised way and interesting discussion.
Thank you for the stimulus and feedback.

I'd like to read your view on what is written in the book "Nuclear Safety" by Gianni Petrangeli.
It can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/40037799/Nuclear-Safety-Gianni-Petrangeli

page 2 gives a schematic of safety measures at CP1 and a speculative explanation of the acronym SCRAM

According to the author "In the light of subsequent approaches used in
reactor safety, probably, in this ﬁrst period, not all the necessary precautions were taken; however, it is necessary to consider the speciﬁc time and circumstances present (a world war in progress or just ﬁnished, status of radiation protection knowledge not yet sufﬁciently advanced, etc.).

On this specific point I kind of share Petrangeli evaluation.
On other book topics my view is much more harsh than Petrangeli view.
In short I deem "complacent", and short minded, economically blinded the attitude toward nuclear safety that has been prevailing in many cases and has unfortunately been factually demonstated at Fukushima.

My hope is that such an attitude will be drastically reconsidered.
I'll be looking forward to read your opinion.
My best regards
Luca

jlduh

May30-11, 03:10 PM

As a direct consequence of the Fukushima disaster, Angela Merkel just announced today that Germany is going to definitively shutdown its 17 nuclear reactors in the next 11 years: 14 before 2021, and the 3 most recent ones in 2022.

Recent polls show that 60 per cent of Germans wanted to shutdown all 17 nuclear plants in the country, with 70 per cent fearful that a Japanese-style disaster could happen in Germany.

http://www.therecord.com/news/world/article/539928--germany-announces-plan-to-shut-down-all-nuclear-power-plants-by-2022

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-to-shut-nuclear-reactors

This decision is today a big subject here in France as you can imagine (France being a strong promoter of nuclear industries!).

Just heard also that the nuclear electricity is subject to price increases in the next years (supposedly because of investments in nuclear safety... which was already safe, were they keeping saying. ????). That may be also a strategy from EDF Suez here in France to justify huge price increases (they already started!) in the next years, they have now (since several years) shareholders to please!

But they have to be very careful with this strategy to justify price increases...

Because the gap between prices of renewable energies and nuclear electricity will decrease, which will bring the critical question: why pay the same prices if the risks are higher? This has always been the big justification here in France for nuclear power: it costs less! But based on the lastest high price increases (and the planned ones!) this starts to bother more and more people. It seems that some projections of costs for latest generations of nuclear plants (like EPR from AREVA) leads to a doubling of production costs in comparison with the ones from the first generations...

In this case, why take the risk of having nuclear plants in a country if the cost advantage evaporates?

(remember you have to take into accout the cost for intalling ad maintaining a huge grid which is also related to big centralized production policy).

jlduh

May31-11, 05:14 AM

Something to add to the previous post...

The cost of "cleaning" (if even possible) could be between 50 times and 165 times the investment cost of one single reactor (I took 2 billions dollars for unit cost)!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_24.html

Fukushima cleanup could cost up to $250 billion

A private think tank says the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could cost Japan up to 250 billion dollars over the next 10 years.The estimate is part of the Nuclear Safety Commission's ongoing survey of opinions on the disaster from nuclear and other experts.[...] the costs of the accident could range from nearly 71 to 250 billion dollars. The figure includes 54 billion to buy up all land within 20 kilometers of the plant, 8 billion for compensation payments to local residents, and 9 to 188 billion to scrap the plant's reactors.

Iwata said a drastic review of the government's nuclear energy policy is necessary to fund the cleanup.He said the government could channel about 71 billion dollars to the necessary fund over the next decade by freezing research and development projects linked to the nuclear fuel cycle.Another 150 billion could come from Tokyo Electric Power Company's reserve fund, and the government's nuclear energy-related budgets.

clancy688

May31-11, 05:27 AM

jlduh

May31-11, 06:10 AM

Is there any reason for you to keep double posting in two or more threads?

Tsunami damages were expected to be around 300 billion dollars. Now they get another 250 billion dollars for removing this nuclear mess.
So much for "the tsunami is way worse than the fukushima disaster". Well, it killed 25000 lives and the NPP none so far. But on economical terms, both disasters are on par. Forgive me for being overly cynical. I tend to think that lost lives are not everything that counts.

Well, I posted this here adding some comment on the cost, because this is more in relation with the nuclear policy and especially the fact that nuclear energy has always been presented as "cheap" or "cheaper". So this is the political aspect of this info.

I posted also on the other one because it is also related to contamination clean up and consequences for japan citizens and taxpayers. Obviously some posts can have different uses and interpretations, that's why i don't see any problem with my double posting of this info, but with messages that are not exactly the same in fact.

I didn't understand precisely your last sentence (I mean the idea behind it), sorry.

clancy688

May31-11, 07:07 AM

I didn't understand precisely your last sentence (I mean the idea behind it), sorry.

Many people keep saying that the Fukushima disaster is nothing compared to the Tsunami disaster. Especially because the Tsunami killed 25000 lives and the NPP claimed none so far (except the one unlucky worker with a heart attack).
But only comparing lost lives is fundamentally wrong. Tsunami damage will be fixed in a couple of years, then economy can grow again. As for the lost lives, there are thousands killed all over the world every day. It's a huge deal for individuals, but for the country as a whole, the lost economy in tsunami stricken areas is much more serious.
Now there's this problem with Fukushima Daiichi. Recovering the mess will cost nearly as much as fixing Tsunami damage. But the lost economy (in the exclusion zone for example) won't be recovered for decades. That land is lost.
When the tsunami areas are flourishing again, the fallout area still will be a major concern for the country.

For individuals, deaths are of course the biggest deal. But for the country as a whole, lost areas are much more serious than a "few thousand" deaths.

And that's an overly cynical, but in my opinion correct, view of the situation.

jlduh

May31-11, 07:26 AM

Ok i understand better. I agree with you, but i want also to add that anyway there will be deaths and ills because of Fukushima, no doubt about this in my mind. The only difference is that it will be much more difficult to count them.

The problem with nuclear stuff is that it's a big social breaker, because of its very nature. The consequences are very large and last long, very long, from the community standpoint. This is never properly shown by numbers.

AntonL

May31-11, 10:11 AM

Message to Tokyo Residents
To pachinko or not to pachinko - that is the question
on the serious side Tokyo governor appealing for a live style of traditional values.

Truth be told, I was 150 percent set on retiring, but various circumstances led to my unexpected fourth term as governor.

What timing, indeed. Immediately after I announced my bid for reelection, the great earthquake struck—a catastrophe that virtually devastated east Japan. I believe this can be called a national crisis, which, in a way, exacts greater sacrifices from us than a small war could. Recovery and restoration are sure to require an enormous amount of time and money.

At the same time, the nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture also sustained devastating damages. The danger of radiation still continues as well. This plant had supplied the capital region with the power needed to function smoothly and support the lives of the citizenry. Unless we use this as an opportunity for careful introspection, the lessons of this crisis will not benefit the future.

For example, amid power shortages resulting from the nuclear accidents, we are expecting a hot summer again this year. While we do not yet know if we will experience a heat wave on the level of last year, it's a fact that power consumption greatly increases during the summer months.

With the power company unable to supply this much-needed power, it is now up to each and every one of us to do our best to conserve energy. While striving to do so, we must reconsider our way of life in Tokyo, which we have hitherto taken for granted. Our lifestyle of comfort and convenience, for example, relies largely on the supply of electric power. What might perhaps be a phenomenon unique to Japan is our street corners saturated with vending machines. This situation no doubt exists because Japan is a safe country. You wouldn't find this condition abroad because of the risk of looters breaking into the vending machines and stealing their contents. Thankfully, the metropolitan area is safe, and so the installation of vending machines has, in a sense, gone rampant.

Recently, an executive of the vending machine association said, "We are definitely not wasting power. We are consuming power for sure, but not wasting it." This is just a fallacious argument. Those machines are found at all the street corners as a modern-day convenience, but can we truly justify this enormous consumption of electricity? I think this is just a waste of energy, an extravagance.

And then there's pachinko, which so many Japanese enjoy. Pachinko parlors are a source of racket, with their endless music and neon signs. And each pachinko machine also devours power. Moreover, there are people making a living by the money earned from pachinko—is it not time to reconsider this way of life?

It seems that many of the people running these pachinko parlors are of Korean descent. Thinking that pachinko would be popular in their homelands, some introduced the game to South Korea, and it caught on right away. The authorities, however, decided to abolish pachinko, arguing that it will make people lazy and ruin their lives.

Now, I do not altogether approve of this approach. But it is a fact that the machines run all day long, making a racket. Moreover, for a pachinko parlor to be one of the first facilities going up in a major area of redevelopment is probably not what I would call a proud example of society's advancement.

In any case, under the current crisis, I don't think our nation can survive unless we reconsider the lifestyles we had taken for granted and, by extension, the forms our lives should take.

The people affected by this disaster are living in truly tragic conditions. But the interactions between the people there—including the volunteers—reveal how human beings should be; seeing the survivors shedding tears in thanks for a modest helping hand gives me hope that the beautiful Japanese spirit of old is still alive within us. But this does not stop here. People all over Japan need to take up the personal challenge of reflecting on how to live their lives and what form their lives will take, or I fear that the heavens will forsake our country.

I may sound presumptuous and aggressive, but I believe that the immense sacrifice and loss caused by the disaster will be in vain if we do not take this opportunity to practice a little more moderation in our lives and move Japan away from a society where materialism and drives for money and sex are rampant.

We must seriously consider making some more concessions, being moderate, shunning selfishness and personal interests, and embracing a lifestyle that is, if not quite frugal, more solid.

Let us reconsider these things and make a change for the better.

Shintaro Ishihara
Governor of Tokyo

zapperzero

May31-11, 10:44 AM

Loved the appeal to xenophobia and fear of the poor&/criminal. The man's good at his job.

clancy688

May31-11, 12:08 PM

Loved the appeal to xenophobia and fear of the poor&/criminal. The man's good at his job.

Oh yes, he's indeed very good at this. A little collection of many of his statements: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/search/?gquery=Ishihara&commit=Senden

AntonL

Jun1-11, 04:22 AM

IAEA submits preliminary report

The expert team made several preliminary findings and lessons learned, including:

● Japan's response to the nuclear accident has been exemplary, particularly illustrated by the dedicated, determined and expert staff working under exceptional circumstances;

● Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, has been impressive and well organized. A suitable and timely follow-up programme on public and worker exposures and health monitoring would be beneficial;

● The tsunami hazard for several sites was underestimated. Nuclear plant designers and operators should appropriately evaluate and protect against the risks of all natural hazards, and should periodically update those assessments and assessment methodologies;

● Nuclear regulatory systems should address extreme events adequately, including their periodic review, and should ensure that regulatory independence and clarity of roles are preserved; and

● The Japanese accident demonstrates the value of hardened on-site Emergency Response Centres with adequate provisions for handling all necessary emergency roles, including communications.

Team leader Michael Weightman handed the report to the prime minister's advisor Goshi Hosono in Tokyo on Wednesday.

The report points out that Japan underestimated the impact of the tsunami. It urges the government to correctly assess the risks of all natural disasters, and draw up protective measures in the design and operation of nuclear power plants.

The report adds that Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency should be independent and given a clear role based on IAEA standards, so it can respond appropriately to disasters.

Hosono thanked the team for its extensive and detailed investigation, and said the Japanese government will make the best use of the report as it probes the crisis.

:rofl: we need 18 experts on a fact finding mission to discover above :rofl::rofl::rofl:

zapperzero

Jun1-11, 04:36 AM

Hmm... It's actually very good if they have said those things. Let me translate from bureaucratese, point by point:

The first responders are heroes and have saved all your arses. Good on them.
It's good that you've evacuated people, now get on with the fallout surveys and the rad exposure screening already!
TEPCO lied about tsunamis and did nothing. That's bad.
You guys swallowed TEPCO's lie about tsunamis hook line and sinker. That's stupid, don't do that again.
Why wasn't there a satellite phone in your fancy new Emergency Centre?

desertlabs

Jun1-11, 03:07 PM

htf

Jun1-11, 06:01 PM

What is plan B?
As they did before - let your radioactivity flow ...

Calvadosser

Jun1-11, 06:42 PM

Many people keep saying that the Fukushima disaster is nothing compared to the Tsunami disaster. Especially because the Tsunami killed 25000 lives and the NPP claimed none so far (except the one unlucky worker with a heart attack). (snip)

Er - wasn't a crane driver killed in one of the explosions? I think I remember reading that six troops were also killed by one of the explosions.

clancy688

Jun1-11, 07:11 PM

Er - wasn't a crane driver killed in one of the explosions? I think I remember reading that six troops were also killed by one of the explosions.

The crane operator died immeadiatly after the earthquake. And he died at Daini, which didn't suffer any explosions.

The six killed workers at Unit 3 are rumours. I haven't seen any reports confirming this. And two workers were killed by the tsunami at Daiichi.
There's probably only one death connected to the nuclear disaster - and that one isn't radiation connected. It's the worker who suffered a heart attack and died because TEPCO apparently didn't see any need to provide sufficient medical emergency care. I rumbled about this here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3303089&postcount=20).

Danuta

Jun1-11, 08:01 PM

As they did before - let your radioactivity flow ...

Yeah, for a company that Moody's recently downgraded to junk status, it would definitely
be a lot cheaper for them to let the radioactivity flow, wouldn't it.

What was it going to cost TEPCO for AREVA's attempting Plan A ?

jlduh

Jun1-11, 08:05 PM

IAEA submits preliminary report

:rofl: we need 18 experts on a fact finding mission to discover above :rofl::rofl::rofl:

I always like that kind of wording: could, should, would, etc.

Instead of "can" or "will"...

In essence, Fukushima SHOULD not have happened. WILL it NOT happpen again is the true question (raised already 25 years ago by the way).

Is IAEA ony able to ask for recommendations like those evidences above, or can IAEA transform these recommendations in CONCRETE ACTS and MEASURES, by imposing them with sanctions in case of non conformance?

Can it do it, and does it want to do it?

Danuta

Jun1-11, 08:11 PM

... or can IAEA transform these recommendations in CONCRETE ACTS and MEASURES, by imposing them with sanctions in case of non conformance?

Can it do it, and does it want to do it?

You're having a pipe dream here. What kind of sanctions can nuclear salespeople impose on anyone?

etudiant

Jun1-11, 09:47 PM

Yeah, for a company that Moody's recently downgraded to junk status, it would definitely
be a lot cheaper for them to let the radioactivity flow, wouldn't it.

What was it going to cost TEPCO for AREVA's attempting Plan A ?

The EX-SKF site here
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/arevas-water-treatment-system-for.html

quotes TEPCO as estimating 210,000 yen/ton, on 250,000 tons, for a total cost of $656 million at current exchange rates. Not clear if this includes the cost of the facility or what if any performance guarantees are involved.

I do think that it is unfair to bash TEPCO at this point. They are obviously just the executive agent of the Japanese government in this matter and it is politically better for them to be blamed than the government.
TEPCO is playing the bad cop role, niggardly on compensation and disclosure, because that gives the government some flexibility which it would lose if it ever assumed direct control. Moreover, given we now know the reactors were doomed within a day of the loss of power, it is not clear any great harm was done by the TEPCO stonewalling during the early days after the accident. Or am I missing something?

tsutsuji

Jun2-11, 01:29 AM

Many people keep saying that the Fukushima disaster is nothing compared to the Tsunami disaster. Especially because the Tsunami killed 25000 lives and the NPP claimed none so far (except the one unlucky worker with a heart attack).

The death toll could be higher :

Nearly 45 people out of some 440 patients and workers at a hospital here are estimated to have died while or after being evacuated following the accident at the tsunami-hit Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html

tsutsuji

Jun2-11, 02:43 AM

The management of the plant is undergoing changes with the creation of a "Fukushima Daiichi Stabilization Center" :

the center will be located in the Hama-dori region within Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station.

The Deputy General Manager of the Nuclear Power & Plant Siting Division will be the resident superintendent.
(...)
TEPCO management has set June 28 as the scheduled date for implementation of the plant stabilization measures.
http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1629125

zapperzero

Jun2-11, 06:01 AM

Moreover, given we now know the reactors were doomed within a day of the loss of power, it is not clear any great harm was done by the TEPCO stonewalling during the early days after the accident. Or am I missing something?

You're missing the part where TEPCO created this mess in the first place. Inexistent tsunami defense, marginal earthquake-proofing, no emergency preparations to speak of (oh yea, they built a concrete office building and called it emergency centre :P), a culture of secrecy and a long history of hiding safety-related problems... Are you kidding me?

clancy688

Jun2-11, 06:18 AM

The death toll could be higher :

My god... I just read the article. That's way beyond shocking...

jlduh

Jun2-11, 06:34 AM

swl

Jun2-11, 07:33 AM

...it is not clear any great harm was done by the TEPCO stonewalling during the early days after the accident. Or am I missing something?

It's not clear to me, no. But I suspect that we would have been better off if they could have vented the containment systems without the Hydrogen explosions. Had the Hydrogen explosions been avoided, it is possible that there would be a greater level of containment now. Also, less equipment would have been damaged, thus leaving more options for cooling, along with better access to the containment buildings, and possibly, less water leakage.

Danuta

Jun2-11, 08:23 AM

... They are obviously just the executive agent of the Japanese government in this matter...

Yes, looks like it now, but no, not before this nuclear fiasco happened. Anyway, that does not excuse TEPCO from their initial acceptance of ridiculously skewed earthquake and tsunami risk assessment. They put those reactors in the most frail milieu probability wise and on top of that cut corners on safety together with falsification of records. This is indefensible and unconscionable. I've a suspicion that most people in the know are way beyond the bashing TEPCO stage and are now into the damning one.

TEPCO literally banked the money instead of banking the shore like they were supposed to.

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 08:59 AM

Well, do you know of any other INDUSTRIAL accident that necessitates a so quick and large evacuation of an area around, including hospitals and so on?

I don't know any. Major nuclear accidents have this unique specificity, which makes them so difficult and large to manage, with unfortunately collateral victims like those.

Pretty much any large chemical processing plant could have a dangerous release of toxic chemicals necessitating wide-spread evacuations. The UNC Bhopal disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster) is probably the most notorious (note that it immediately killed 5x more people than even Chernobyl's high estimate for premature cancer deaths).

Apparently there was a coal mine fire in 1969 in Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania) which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

clancy688

Jun2-11, 09:20 AM

Apparently there was a coal mine fire in 1969 in Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania) which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

"quick" and "large" evacuation necessary?

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 09:25 AM

"quick" and "large" evacuation necessary?

The Bhopal disaster most surely did. The coal mine fire was more of an example of non-nuclear related ecological disaster making land unusable for long period of time.

clancy688

Jun2-11, 09:33 AM

The Bhopal disaster most surely did. The coal mine fire was more of an example of non-nuclear related ecological disaster making land unusable for long period of time.

Check the affected area of the Bhopal disaster, compare it to any nuclear accident and come and post again.

Of course you get thousands of deaths if a chemical plant built in the middle of a city explodes.

We'd have thousands of radiation deaths (not cancer deaths) as well if Chernobyl was located in Kiev city. No, probably more...

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 10:00 AM

Check the affected area of the Bhopal disaster, compare it to any nuclear accident and come and post again.

Of course you get thousands of deaths if a chemical plant built in the middle of a city explodes.

We'd have thousands of radiation deaths (not cancer deaths) as well if Chernobyl was located in Kiev city. No, probably more...

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

clancy688

Jun2-11, 12:05 PM

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

Pripyat was located 4 km northwest to the NPP. The evacuation happened at April 27th, one day after the disaster. Because of favourable winds, heavy contamination of Pripyat happened only after the evacuation was completed.

As for Bhopal, the population in a radius 1 km around the plant was 100.000.

Luca Bevil

Jun2-11, 12:05 PM

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

Prypiat is at about 3 km from the chernobyl plant.

Moreover it is well known that acute effects begin at around 3 Sv absorbed over a short period.
This does not make a few hundred millisieverts absorbed over a few days less dangerous for substantially increased cancer and leukemia risk.

Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 12:42 PM

Pripyat was located 4 km northwest to the NPP. The evacuation happened at April 27th, one day after the disaster. Because of favourable winds, heavy contamination of Pripyat happened only after the evacuation was completed.

As for Bhopal, the population in a radius 1 km around the plant was 100.000.

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna. Allow me to quote my original comment so that the context is not forgotten:

Well, do you know of any other INDUSTRIAL accident that necessitates a so quick and large evacuation of an area around, including hospitals and so on?

I don't know any. Major nuclear accidents have this unique specificity, which makes them so difficult and large to manage, with unfortunately collateral victims like those.

Pretty much any large chemical processing plant could have a dangerous release of toxic chemicals necessitating wide-spread evacuations. The UNC Bhopal disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster) is probably the most notorious (note that it immediately killed 5x more people than even Chernobyl's high estimate for premature cancer deaths).

Apparently there was a coal mine fire in 1969 in Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania) which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

clancy688

Jun2-11, 01:21 PM

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna. Allow me to quote my original comment so that the context is not forgotten:

Nope. The contrary. Those 5000 people at Bhopal wouldn't have died if the plant was located a few km outside the city.

And bologna or not - radiation levels in Prypjat were reaching three-digit mSv/hr numbers by April 27th evening (the whole population was evacuated during noon). I leave it to your imagination what the first cloud (the one formed by the explosion which did MISS Pripyat) whould have done to the population of any city in its path.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras-urban-draft-pripyat-May06.pdf

The first radioactive cloud, which had formed during the explosion, under conditions of
steady night weather, was elevated to 300-500 m height and went to the west, creating a long (up to 100 km) and almost straight, narrow trace [Izrael, 1990]. It passed south of Pripyat’s residential buildings by 1.5-2 km. This trace fallout contained many unoxidized fuel particles, some of which were very large (up to 10-100 µm) and were deposited along the first kilometers of the cloud’s path [Kashparov, 2001]. Also, at the moment of the explosion, almost all of the reactor’s noble gases were released into the atmosphere [Izrael, 1990].
Further, during natural fuel heat-up and graphite stack burning (up to 1800-2000 °K), a spurt
of radioactive releases was elevated to 1000-1200 m height and directed to the northwest
[Izrael, 1990; Baryakhtar, 1997], bending around Pripyat. They were enriched by highly mobile, volatile radionuclides (I, Te, Cs) and finely dispersed, oxidized fuel particles (1-3 µm). In the surface layer of the atmosphere, the air current was transferred mainly to the west and southwest directions. By noon of April 26, the plume reached the settlement of Polesskoe and crossed it by a narrow trace. The dose rate reached 0.1-0.6 mR/h there (in some places, 2.0 mR/h) [Nad’yarnyh et al., 1989].
On April 27, the north and northwest directions of surface air currents prevailed. This caused
a quick worsening of the radiation situation in Pripyat. On April 26, the radiation level in the town was 0.014-0.13 R/h, but by the evening of April 27, this level had reached 0.4-1.0 R/h, and in some places, 1.5 R/h [Baryakhtar, 1997] (by other data, up to 4-7 R/h [Repin, 1995]).
During the period of 14:00-16:30, all of the town’s residents were evacuated. The strongest radioactive fallout occurred along the eastern outskirts of the town. Although during that time the releases were enriched by small particle aerosols with sublimated radionuclides, there were also some heavy combustion products which precipitated on the closest territories, including Pripyat’s surroundings. On April 28-29, the radioactive releases began to lose height (600 m) and activity, and the transfer turned gradually to the northeast [Izrael, 1990].

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 01:30 PM

Nope. The contrary. Those 5000 people at Bhopal wouldn't have died if the plant was located a few km outside the city.

Ok. And No one would have had any radiation exposure at Chernobyl if they weren't conducting an unsafe experiment with an unsafe designed reactor. And the Fukushima accident would not have happened if the Tsunami flood wall was a few meters higher. What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

And bologna or not - radiation levels in Prypjat were reaching three-digit mSv/hr numbers by April 27th evening (the whole population was evacuated during noon). I leave it to your imagination what the first cloud (the one formed by the explosion which did MISS Pripyat) whould have done to the population of any city in its path.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras-urban-draft-pripyat-May06.pdf

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

clancy688

Jun2-11, 01:45 PM

What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

Let's see, we've had three large scale nuclear accidents so far. Mayak, Chernobyl and Fukushima. For all you could consider us being lucky since we encountered favourable winds. Maybe that won't happen with number four.
And how many "non-nuclear industrial accidents" have there been so far? Millions? I'm pretty sure that many of these accidents encountered "lucky" situations as shown above. As for Bhopal, that was probably an very "unlucky" situation. A third world country with no emergency procedures, a leaking chemical plant inside the slum of a city with over one million residents... of course there are horrendous fatalities.
At Seveso (in Italy) a similar accident happened. But only two people died. How many people would've died if the plant would have been at the same location as the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal?
You're picking practically the worst non-nuclear industrial accident ever out of millions of accidents, oppose it to the only three large scale nuclear accidents we had so far and keep telling "Look, nuclear accidents aren't so bad, are they?".
Nuclear Accidents SO FAR haven't been as bad as Bhopal. That's correct. But they have the potential to become, way, way worse. It just hasn't happened yet.

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes and no. They were hazardous. The people were just lucky to be missed by the hazardous cloud. That's all.
You're basically saying "If an avalanche doesn't hit me, it's not dangerous."

robinson

Jun2-11, 01:57 PM

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 02:14 PM

You're picking practically the worst non-nuclear industrial accident ever out of millions of accidents, oppose it to the only three large scale nuclear accidents we had so far and keep telling "Look, nuclear accidents aren't so bad, are they?".
Nuclear Accidents SO FAR haven't been as bad as Bhopal. That's correct. But they have the potential to become, way, way worse. It just hasn't happened yet.

There have only been three large scale nuclear accidents. I'm comparing the worst non-nuclear industrial accident to the worst nuclear industrial accident. It would be kind of silly to compare to the worst non-nuclear industrial accident to a postulated worst-case doomsday scenario nuclear accident. I could come up with all sorts of doomsday scenarios in non-nuclear industries that have the potential to be far far worse. I mean, SO FAR wide-spread use of antibiotics has not lead to the development of genocidal super-bug, but theoretically it could. Does that mean we should cease use of all antibiotics, just in case?

QuantumPion

Jun2-11, 02:49 PM

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in any one of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

The reason why they are all lumped together is because the total radiation release by all of the Fukushima units combined is less than 5% of the Chernobyl accident (~200 PBq compared to >4000 for Chernobyl) and is primarily Iodine (Chernobyl released particulate core material). Hence why calling it as bad as Chernobyl is disingenuous in the extreme.

robinson

Jun2-11, 03:56 PM

Nobody actually knows the amount of material released so far, especially into the ocean. As for the amount that is out of containment at this point, it's huge. Of course advocates want to say leaking material from water doesn't count, because somehow even though it is no longer inside a reactor (or fuel pond), it's still contained somehow.

The other factor, which advocates have hung onto for dear life, is that they want to say what is now is the complete disaster. Like no more material will escape, and nothing could possibly happen in the years to come. The disaster is years away from any semblance of safe, so it's ongoing.

Or rather six disasters are ongoing.

From my reading of nuclear advocates, even if all the core material, and spent fuel rods, even if all of it was released, they wouldn't change their stance that nuclear power is the safest power source ever.

Which is pure nonsense, but they have actually said this. Even if all the material leaks out, because evacuations and careful avoidance by workers would mean nobody died, they would trumpet that fact as if it means nuclear power is still safe. Which is of course, pure politics.

tsutsuji

Jun3-11, 05:32 AM

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in any one of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

Do you think Fukushima Daiichi unit 5 and 6 pose a bigger threat than neighboring Fukushima Daini Power Plant ? If so, why ?

Luca Bevil

Jun3-11, 05:57 AM

Ok. And No one would have had any radiation exposure at Chernobyl if they weren't conducting an unsafe experiment with an unsafe designed reactor. And the Fukushima accident would not have happened if the Tsunami flood wall was a few meters higher. What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

I think this position is so disrepectful of the enormous suffering, increased cancers, additional deaths, eroic efforts carried out by first line workers, biorobots liquidators in Chernobyl that it does not deserve a stance in a civilised dialog.

Comparing an admittedly horrible chemical accident like the one in Bopal (in fact the worst chemical accident ever, for the abysmal safety management put in place there) that orrendously affecteded the local population, but only the local population, with Fukushima or worse Chernobyl is completely unacceptable on any scientific or ethic ground.

Chernobyl spewed radioactive substances that fell out in most of Europe.
300.000 people were forced to relocate and this mass evacuation notwithstanding the WHO estimates in more than 4.000 the additional deaths from cancer due to the accident.
Other about 4.000 additional thiroyd cancer cases have been recognised among children.
The fact that thyroid cancer is in a measure "treatable" (15 out of 4000 had died as of 2006 if I remember correctly) does not make their lives less ruined.
I am aunaware about how many additional deaths among them can be estimates as of today.

Needless to say the scientific value of the "Chernobyl Report" is highly debatable.
Health consequences of contamination outside the "worst contaminated areas" are completely disregarded where the same estimation techniques applied to the most contaminated areas would lead to other 4.000 expected deaths if all pplied as reasonable in all the remaining affected areas of Europe.
Moreover it is common experience of any voluntary visiting Ukraine or Bielarus that the empirical real feedback from children hospitals is far from serious than the data published in that highly debatable report for both cancer cases and genetic abnormalities.
I kind of suspect QuantumPion is not among such people though.

Greenpeace has published far different estimates about Chernobyl toll, getting up to something about 80.000 additional deaths.
While this estimate may in turn be debated it cannot be debated that even taking such numbers with outmost skepticism Chernobyl makes Bopal pale in comparison.

Fukushima was officially estimated INES7 and as of April the 6th at about 10% of airborne emission compared to Chernobyl.
CS 137 discharge in water is (as of today) already in the Chernobyl order of magnitude, as it has been quickly estimated from official data in the other 3d, and the actual effectiveness of purification of such a contaminated mass of water has still to be proven by the AREVA processing plant.

Moreover Fukushima had in fact a worst case scenario (let's say in case of SFP4 collapsing to state just an example that worried not only me but Gregory Jazco head of the US NRC) much worse than Chernobyl itself.
Likelihood of such a scenario has substantially decreased but the situation is far from being stable at almost 3 months past the accident.

In this light meaning no disprespect to the lives taht were lost in BOPAL, also Fukushima worried and worries me much more than Bopal.

As an example back in 1986 in my home town in southern Italy 2000 km away from the plant had to exercise outmost care in minimising my own exposure from briething and eating (QuantumPrion may not care but back then I rather minimise my chanches of getting a solid cancer or conceive genetically ill children).

Danuta

Jun3-11, 07:45 AM

zapperzero

Jun3-11, 09:10 AM

Oh dear.

It does get quite tiresome, especially the second time around. I am a Chernobyl downwinder, you see, just like most of Europe. Unlike most of Europe, I was living in one of those places where it got bad enough that iodine pills were distributed. The populace was told to distill water for drinking/cooking and then store it for a week or so... Drink bottled water in the meantime, they said.

So I tend to do this weird schadenfreude chuckle when nuclear shills like QuantumPion do their little song and dance. Keep it up, lil' buddies. Soon enough, it will be YOUR kids lining up terrified in a school yard to get foul-tasting little yellow pills. You'll even get to try and explain what they're for, when they come home. That is, unless saner minds than yours prevail.

robinson

Jun3-11, 09:21 AM

Let's try and avoid the oh so human desire to insult our opponents.

Which must be hard if you have ever suffered from radioactive fallout.

Danuta

Jun3-11, 09:42 AM

Let's try and avoid the oh so human desire to insult our opponents.

Which must be hard if you have ever suffered from radioactive fallout.

Hey, and you know what I find personally insulting? Nuclear industry illogical happyspeak bullcrap.

robinson

Jun3-11, 09:46 AM

I find all dishonest manipulation and human lies rub me the wrong way. The thing is, it's so much a part of human nature, and it is so prevalent, getting upset over it can make you crazy. It's like raging over bad drivers and rude people.

Dmytry

Jun3-11, 09:47 AM

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna.
Sorry, but that is not. If Chernobyl was 3km closer and the wind was blowing at Pripyat', without extremely quick evacuation easily ten thousand people could have died of acute symptoms. Just like the trees right downwind died (trees have much larger lethal dose btw).

Really, that's the thing with nukes... accidents happen, ookay, but the worst thing is that nobody wants to learn any from the accidents that happen. Worse than that, some people make up and spread lies such as about Chernobyl being in middle of Pripyat, of how late the evacuation was done, and so on. Lucky weather, combined with such lies result in decrease in the safety.

zapperzero

Jun3-11, 10:01 AM

Let's try and avoid the oh so human desire to insult our opponents.

Which must be hard if you have ever suffered from radioactive fallout.

Suffered from? I don't think so, not yet. I took my iodine and got my shivers and heat spells just like everyone else. Not too bad.

Should I come down with cancer, as about half (iirc) of Europe's population eventually does, I could blame it on Chernobyl, but I won't be able to make it stick, not even to my own satisfaction, let alone that of an international court.

But when I call someone a shill, I do not do it to insult, rather to explain what I perceive as the reason for their behavior.

desertlabs

Jun3-11, 10:30 AM

But when I call someone a shill, I do not do it to insult, rather to explain what I perceive as the reason for their behavior.

I understand. I call them nuclear lobbyists.

Here are some links to lists of nuclear accidents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2715/1/
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/04/radioactive_accidents
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/03/worst-nuclear-accidents-in-history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Here is a link to recent findings about the wildlife at Chernobyl.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_chernobyl/all/1

zapperzero

Jun3-11, 11:11 AM

I felt bad about having perhaps insulted someone, as I am wont to do when my feelings run high. Then I found this post by QuantumPion here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=160725
I currently have a bachelors in nuclear engineering and work for a utility company.

It follows that his or her continued wellbeing depends in a significant proportion on the continued existence and wealth of the nuclear industry. So now I'm thinking that all of QuantumPion's pro-nuclear posts should be accepted, if at all, at a rather sharp discount.

EDIT: to be honest, I was relieved to find that QuantumPion is not a sockpuppet account created specially for this current emergency, having been established in 2007. Sockpuppets are much, much harder to deal with than honest (and earnest) amateur propagandists.

robinson

Jun3-11, 11:22 AM

zapperzero

Jun3-11, 11:51 AM

I tend to avoid any online discussion of nuclear power because it is virtually impossible to discuss it factually. Be it the cost, the environmental effects, the accidents, the risks, or the long term storage problem, or the ongoing Fukushima disasters, the things first sacrificed seem to be logic and factual data.

The lack of data is what's most galling. In the present crisis there's a conspicuous lack of "official" fallout surveys and emissions tallies, workers don't have dosimeters or even film badges for some strange reason, whole body counts seem to be unheard of unless someone actually steps in 1 Sv/h water and private citizens with dosimeters stumble upon radioactive sludge heaps and so on and so forth and it gets real tiresome after a while.

Even the tech guys and gals in the disaster physics thread are getting tired of having so little useful data to play with. But with every sensor they add and every bit of damage they document, NISA & TEPCO officials are also adding years to their possible prison sentences and yen in liability to their balance sheets, respectively, and they know it.

gmax137

Jun3-11, 01:31 PM

I felt bad about having perhaps insulted someone, as I am wont to do when my feelings run high. Then I found this post by QuantumPion here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=160725
I currently have a bachelors in nuclear engineering and work for a utility company.

It follows that his or her continued wellbeing depends in a significant proportion on the continued existence and wealth of the nuclear industry. So now I'm thinking that all of QuantumPion's pro-nuclear posts should be accepted, if at all, at a rather sharp discount.

...

Wow, if you applied that logic consistently you'd never do anything unless you did it yourself. Toilet backed up? Better call the carpenter, you know that plumber makes his living off broken pipes...

[EDIT} oh yeah, don't bother looking, I've been a 'shill' for the "nuke complex" for over 30 years.

Luca Bevil

Jun3-11, 01:43 PM

Dmytry

Jun3-11, 05:29 PM

Ahh, the guy who posted this
Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).
works in nuke industry?
I was giving him benefit of the doubt, that he was unwittingly repeating a bunch of gross falsehoods, but...

It is the case, unfortunately, that people tend to put online disinformation in favour of their self-interest. Some people do it subtly, trying to maintain plausibility, and themselves appearing reasonable and neutral (the misinformation would be in details), some do it over the top, trying to influence the people who tend to look at debate and think the truth is in the middle.
I'm giving benefit of the doubt here, you know. I'd rather the nuclear power plants be run by people who's deliberately posting misinformation and themselves know just how bad the disasters were, than by genuinely incompetent/clueless. Perhaps I am rather seeing it in too positive light.
Perhaps they are not liars. Perhaps they genuinely have poor understanding of the risks from the machinery they are operating or designing. Perhaps they genuinely do not understand that a nuclear power plant or a fuel reprocessing facility is a massive toxic repository, far in exceed of any chemical plant in terms of number of human LD50s stored and accumulated on-site - and it has to be treated as such.
Perhaps they genuinely believe that Chernobyl was in middle of Pripyat and that Pripyat was not evacuated for several days, and thus see Chernobyl as genuine proof of how safe nuclear industry is. If that is so - given that we are already doing the best to ensure competence of nuclear power plant operators and designers, if nonetheless such levels of incompetence slip in - perhaps there's nothing that can be done and nuclear power plants have to be closed.

MiceAndMen

Jun3-11, 09:39 PM

Short of making this a global effort, it is hard to see what TEPCO could have done additional.
Presumably, the global effort option was rejected both for operational as well as political reasons, ie how do you coordinate a nuclear emergency with a polyglot crew that cannot talk to each other?.

I can think of 6 things TEPCO could have done differently, or at least with more urgency, right off the top of my head. I don't want to argue (or even list) every point, but google "tepco slow" and you'll find 1.8 million hits on the subject. They're not all uninformed or agenda-pushing points of view, either; there are many valid and legitimate criticisms being leveled at TEPCO even after you discard the cranks and rabid anti-nuke crowd.

They face a gargantuan task, there is no doubt about that. It remains to be seen whether or not they are capable of managing it. Either way, in my opinion the primary reason it has not become a global cleanup operation is this: money. If the perceived risk outside of Japan becomes a serious issue, then this may change, but the cost of the cleanup in money, manpower and lives is an unknown unknowable variable at present, and nobody who was not responsible for it will voluntarily assume any of that cost or risk right now.

htf

Jun4-11, 01:24 AM

I still dont see why this means it has to be earthquake generated. Surely the state of the reactor due to core melting is enough to cause problems by this stage.
There recently was a report that clearly showed that reactor #1 was damaged during the earthquake. It was a TEPCO insider who disclosed information to the press. Shortly after the earthquake workers tried to enter reactor #1 but could't because of high radioactivity levels. What else but structural damages caused by the earthquake could explain that? Core melting had not yet started. And why did the emergency cooling system of reactor #1 fail much earlier than in units 2 and 3?

You may say this is not officially approved information. But there is one thing that is for sure: TEPCO and the Japanese government have been laying and down-playing the accident since the disaster started. And they still are. They only admit what is evident.

robinson

Jun4-11, 08:29 AM

It seems terribly important for the pro nuclear voices to insist the earthquakes couldn't have caused any damage at all. It's easy enough to see why. But it's politics, not science or physics driving that train of thought.

andybwell

Jun4-11, 11:15 PM

Tepco starting to "come clean" "After almost three months, there no sign of stabilizing the situation".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0xJyFTLovE&feature=feedu

andybwell

Jun4-11, 11:25 PM

agapemom

Jun5-11, 08:00 AM

You guys and gals, of course, knew this all along. Right?

"The dangers of fukushima are greater than we think."

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b8e53c620300ae88791163048&id=68c85cc08a

http://www.chrismartenson.com/martensonreport/part-2-arnie-gundersen-interview-protecting-yourself-if-situation-worsens

Thank you for these links Andy - they are exactly what I've been looking for. An analysis of what has happened, what needs to be done, what to look for, and how to respond - all in Layman's terms.

THANKS again!

Borek

Jun5-11, 08:15 AM

Thank you for these links Andy - they are exactly what I've been looking for. An analysis of what has happened, what needs to be done, what to look for, and how to respond - all in Layman's terms.

Problem is, not everyone agrees with this analysis, some see it as too alarmistic.

robinson

Jun5-11, 08:16 AM

And we certainly don't want any alarms going off. Move along, nothing to see here.

agapemom

Jun5-11, 08:21 AM

Problem is, not everyone agrees with this analysis, some see it as too alarmistic.

Thanks for that information too. What do you see as the most off-base or "alarmistic" portions of the message?

Do you think that the analysis of what has happened so far accurate?

Borek

Jun5-11, 08:29 AM

And we certainly don't want any alarms going off. Move along, nothing to see here.

That's not the situation. If that would be the case, I would delete links.

Borek

Jun5-11, 08:35 AM

Thanks for that information too. What do you see as the most off-base or "alarmistic" portions of the message?

Do you think that the analysis of what has happened so far accurate?

I haven't read this particular interview, my opinion is based on earlier Gundersen's comments. They were discussed in the main thread several times over the last two months, sorry, I don't remember enough details to locate them fast now.

clancy688

Jun5-11, 08:43 AM

Thanks for that information too. What do you see as the most off-base or "alarmistic" portions of the message?

Do you think that the analysis of what has happened so far accurate?

There are certainly some aspects which are worthy of discussion.

Recriticality: Gundersen mentioned that iodine levels in the SFPs measured one month after the accident indicate that there's been recriticality going on inside. NUCENG proved that wrong with simple math in the main thread.

Chernobyl contamination levels: What Arnie says is only half of the truth. There are zones with 1,5 MBq/m² disposition and more. It's in fact up to 30 MBq/m². But saying that that's more than Chernobyl is not correct. The truth is, land around Chernobyl became an exclusion zone if the disposition was over 1,5 MBq/m². But that's of course not the upper boundary. It is the lower one.

Possible Unit 4 collapse: Many people in this forum are questioning the "Unit 4 leaning theory".

Dmytry

Jun5-11, 10:57 AM

There are certainly some aspects which are worthy of discussion.

Recriticality: Gundersen mentioned that iodine levels in the SFPs measured one month after the accident indicate that there's been recriticality going on inside. NUCENG proved that wrong with simple math in the main thread.
the hell he proved it. All he shown was that there is enough i-131 in the fuel, but not the mechanism that would be several thousands times more selective in transfer of I-131 vs cs-137 than anywhere else (which would be required to have such i-131 concentration without much higher than observed cs-137 concentration).

htf

Jun5-11, 01:48 PM

All he shown was that there is enough i-131 in the fuel, but not the mechanism that would be several thousands times more selective in transfer of I-131 vs cs-137 than anywhere else
Sound to me like the ether theory and the Michelson-Morley-experiment.

It has neither been proofed that there is re-criticality nor has it been excluded. But re-criticality theory can perfectly explain the observations, whereas no plausible mechanism has been invented so far by those believing in non-criticality. This is a fact.

clancy688

Jun5-11, 02:47 PM

Sound to me like the ether theory and the Michelson-Morley-experiment.

It has neither been proofed that there is re-criticality nor has it been excluded. But re-criticality theory can perfectly explain the observations, whereas no plausible mechanism has been invented so far by those believing in non-criticality. This is a fact.

Um, nope...?

He proved that even with very little fuel damage (~ 5%) and NO recriticality the iodine levels in the pool (~150 Bq/cm³ if I remember correct) could be explained.

Recriticality for Unit 4 explains in fact nothing. It was mathmatical proved (by NUCENG again) that radiolysis alone could be responsible for the hydrogen blast which killed the outer structure of Unit 4. Keep in mind that underwater videos of SFP 4 show intact fuel racks.

htf

Jun5-11, 03:26 PM

Um, nope...?

He proved that even with very little fuel damage (~ 5%) and NO recriticality the iodine levels in the pool (~150 Bq/cm³ if I remember correct) could be explained.

You are etirely missing the point. The Cs vs. I ration has not been explained. No doubt about the absolute levels. But the ratio has to be explained. And I am not only talking about the SPF#4. The Cs/I ratio is not what you would expect in many cases. There have been speculations from the beginning of the crisis.

I am not saying that it is impossible to explain but I'd like to hear a plausible explanation. As long as there is none I consider Gunderson's re-criticality theory as very plausible.

Luca Bevil

Jun5-11, 04:29 PM

And in any case, I would not say that Arnie Gundersen has lost credibility for offering a possible explanation.

htf

Jun6-11, 12:45 AM

Gunderson has a bad reputation in this form because in his videos he was sometimes speculating too much. Of course, he wanted people to watch his videos. But in the Chris Martenson interview he makes some very important statement that I do not consider as speculations:

1. The worst case has happened in Fukushima. The RPVs have holes and the containments are leaking.

2. Massive inland contamination has only been prevented by fortunate winds.

3. The situation is still not under control and the reactors are still emitting massive amounts of radioactivity.

4. The stability of the buildings may be in danger when flooding the containments and massive aftershocks hit them.

5. The nightmare is not yet over.

You may think I am against nuclear power. But I personally never was. Not until Fukushima. And I still think nuclear power plants can be safely operated from a technical point of view. But I am now convinced that profit oriented companies have disqualified themselves for this job.

jlduh

Jun6-11, 04:49 AM

"[...] experts on nuclear power generation are an enclosed group and they tend to avoid vigorous discussions and uncomfortable subjects"

I think this is maybe not the case only in nuclear business (I know many other occurences of this phenomenon), BUT in case of nuclear industry, this can have much more consequences than in many other fields. Lack of counter forces and alternative discussions INSIDE the business is what is happening, in other words. In other words again, you can get blind by shutting your eyes to much and too long.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_23.html

The chairperson of Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission, Haruki Madarame, has told NHK that the engineering guidelines for nuclear power plants should be thoroughly revised as they do not include the possibility of a long-term power failure.

[...]

The guidelines were last modified by the commission in 1990.They state that a long-term power failure can be ignored as emergency back-up systems are expected to supply electricity. The complacency about blackouts has been pointed out as one of the causes of the severe accidents at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Madarame told NHK that the guidelines clearly state that a long-term power failure can be disregarded. He said he paid no attention to the explanation until the accidents and he regrets his lack of knowledge, adding that the guidelines should have included the worst-case scenario.

He said the guidelines were not revised because experts on nuclear power generation are an enclosed group and they tend to avoid vigorous discussions and uncomfortable subjects. He concluded that the Fukushima accidents were caused by human error.

zapperzero

Jun6-11, 04:49 AM

Wow, if you applied that logic consistently you'd never do anything unless you did it yourself. Toilet backed up? Better call the carpenter, you know that plumber makes his living off broken pipes...

[EDIT} oh yeah, don't bother looking, I've been a 'shill' for the "nuke complex" for over 30 years.

Well I tend to do the routine maintenance work on my motorbikes myself, after having been ripped off by mechanics once too often. I even went so far as to acquire the skills needed to change lightbulbs in the house :D.

But other than that, I tend to trust those who have demonstrable expertise. I would certainly trust QuantumPion to understand a decay chain or a jet pump and be able to discuss such subjects in a reasonable and balanced manner.

Yet, I would not blindly trust him, or you, or anyone else in the industry when the talk turns to "is nuclear power really necessary?" just as I wouldn't trust my mechanic to answer truthfully if I ask "hey, do you think it would be an issue if I checked my spark plugs all by myself from now on?".

Dmytry

Jun6-11, 05:03 AM

Um, nope...?

He proved that even with very little fuel damage (~ 5%) and NO recriticality the iodine levels in the pool (~150 Bq/cm³ if I remember correct) could be explained.

that little fuel damage would also release Cs-137 , with Cs to I ratio far in excess (factor of >1000) of what was observed (due to how Cs-137 did not decay appreciable whereas i-131 decayed by more than 10 half-lifes), or conversely requiring >1000x better selectivity in transfer of Cs than I versus *everything else*. It is not some puny factor of 10 or so you can see elsewhere. It is massive selectivity. [edit: and to anticipate some stuff, no it's not transfer as CsI because CsI has 1360:1 ratio of I-131 to Cs-137 in Bq and only a very small fraction of Cs there could have been in form of CsI]

Got to love how those with self interest provide stuff for the entire range of gullibility, from the reactor being in centre of Pripyat to simple math proof of Gundersen being wrong so that whatever Gundersen says can be dismissed (albeit that one might be non-deliberate, leaving the mis-interpretation as exercise of the reader). Sigh.
What can work as non-criticality explanation for the isotope ratio is contaminated cooling water.

Think critically guys, don't approach it with preconception that someone from nuke industry will always get it wrong (the inclination to get stuff wrong doesn't mean everyone necessarily will), don't approach it with preconception that someone from nuke industry will get it right (just coz they know some stuff doesn't mean they'd not make something misleading; deception is extremely common), just think yourself.

Dmytry

Jun6-11, 05:26 AM

But other than that, I tend to trust those who have demonstrable expertise. I would certainly trust QuantumPion to understand a decay chain or a jet pump and be able to discuss such subjects in a reasonable and balanced manner.

in my opinion anyone who thinks that Chernobyl NPP was in middle of Pripyat and Pripyat was not evacuated for several days, could not be trusted at all. There is a plenty of balanced information on the Chernobyl. There is generally a very strong correlation between ignorance on different but related topics; i'm pretty sure that the people who manage to pick up such gross misconception about Chernobyl despite the availability of good data also managed to pick up more misconceptions about decay chains or jet pumps or what ever than average. Yes, in principle, if someone does not get right facts about Chernobyl, that does not preclude perfect knowledge of decay chains or the like, but in reality there's often a common cause to mistakes.

TL;DR: I'd not trust anyone there, it is a much better idea to check it yourself.

robinson

Jun6-11, 09:47 AM

Those who make a living and depend on nuclear reactors for power can not be objective about the current disasters. It's just not possible. Those with a preexisting objection about the dangers may also suffer from bias. It's human nature.

An issue as complicated and connected to weapons and world governments and the military is often muddled by politics.

NUCENG

Jun6-11, 10:17 AM

the hell he proved it. All he shown was that there is enough i-131 in the fuel, but not the mechanism that would be several thousands times more selective in transfer of I-131 vs cs-137 than anywhere else (which would be required to have such I-131 concentration without much higher than observed Cs-137 concentration).

Dmytry is correct. My calculations were only aimed at determining if the data could be explained without assuming recriticality. I determined that fuel damage equivalent to a 5% gap release could explain the levels at that time. I did not make any claim that there was or was not recriticality. There were several potential explanations being debated at that time and some were claiming that recriticality was evident. Others (TEPCO) were trying to float a lead baloon blaming deposition.

Further, I have repeatedly pointed out that the interpretation of I-131 to Cs-137 ratios is a very difficult nut to crack unless you know a lot more that we did about the transport path, temperatures, pH, and chemistry. In the case of the turbine building subdrain levels in one building I frankly admitted that the trends seemed to be backwards at that time with increasing I-131 and little or no change in Cs-137.

If you have a specific sample point in mind, I can look at this again, but please be careful in interpreting my results.

clancy688

Jun6-11, 12:59 PM

If you have a specific sample point in mind, I can look at this again, but please be careful in interpreting my results.

Okay, I'm sorry. I did misinterpret your statements. Recriticality cannot ruled out. But I still think it's unlikely.

Dmytry

Jun6-11, 01:05 PM

Dmytry is correct. My calculations were only aimed at determining if the data could be explained without assuming recriticality. I determined that fuel damage equivalent to a 5% gap release could explain the levels at that time. I did not make any claim that there was or was not recriticality. There were several potential explanations being debated at that time and some were claiming that recriticality was evident. Others (TEPCO) were trying to float a lead baloon blaming deposition.

Further, I have repeatedly pointed out that the interpretation of I-131 to Cs-137 ratios is a very difficult nut to crack unless you know a lot more that we did about the transport path, temperatures, pH, and chemistry. In the case of the turbine building subdrain levels in one building I frankly admitted that the trends seemed to be backwards at that time with increasing I-131 and little or no change in Cs-137.

If you have a specific sample point in mind, I can look at this again, but please be careful in interpreting my results.
well ya... anyways on the topic of the transport paths, temperatures, pH, and chemistry, the point is that it has to be over 1000 times more preferential for I versus Cs than any other transport we seen anywhere there so far, even for seriously long and complex paths. That makes it fairly implausible, don't you think? Extraordinary claims shouldn't be taken as default hypothesis. If something can get 99.9% of Cs out of the solution by accident, they should just use that miracle on basement water.
The simplest explanation IMO is use of contaminated water for cooling. The basements and such, well, what is really strange is that they are not testing for other isotopes, or not releasing results. If there was re-criticality they wouldn't publish those isotopes data, but its uncertain if they would if there is no re-criticality. In any case TEPCO can easily find out if there was recriticality or not.

BTW, do you think, based on photos, that the freshly spent fuel in #4 pool was damaged? It looks this way to me, the grid on top is distorted on some of the blocks... which does suggest damage to the boral plates and definitely to boraflex (which is plastic). Half-burnt fuel has the maximum reactivity. Of course what is not seen in #4 is any signs of re-criticality of any note, with any kaboom-type disassembly, so the re-criticality in the pool does seem quite implausible.

NUCENG

Jun6-11, 02:47 PM

Okay, I'm sorry. I did misinterpret your statements. Recriticality cannot ruled out. But I still think it's unlikely.

It is natural to look for information that confirms our opinions. I don't know if there has been recriticality. I hope that it hasn't occurred because the Japanese already have enough troubles dealing with plants that are shut down. But I am watching for evidence that it has happened.

Despite what suspicions some posters have expressed here about "plant men", "shills", or several other negative references, most engineers that are successful in the nuclear industry are successful because they don't accept things at face value. They "pull the string" to find out what is really behind an event. Experience is the best teacher and an engineer (whatever his or her industry) who is afraid of being wrong is in the wrong occupation. You may never be able to prove WHAT happened, but by elimination of what did NOT happen you may actually learn more. I am learning a lot here, and not just techical stuff.

BTW CLANCY is my favorite author.

clancy688

Jun6-11, 03:17 PM

BTW CLANCY is my favorite author.

Yeah. It's a shame that he doesn't write anymore - at least that's what I wanted to type, but I'm seeing now that he's back with two more novels. I thought he stopped after Teeth of the Tiger. At least I read reports about a nasty divorce involving character rights and health problems...
Apparently learning something about nuclear disaster engineering isn't the only thing one can experience in this forum - seeing my favourite author being back in business quite made my day.
Well and if that isn't a coincidence - his second newest book is about terrorists trying to bomb a nuclear waste facility in the USA...

Regarding recriticality in SFP #4

As already mentioned, there are videos showing the pool's interior. There seems to be outer damage at the fuel assemblies, but I would expect more if there was a criticality going on. If I'm informed right, there are three conditions to be met for recriticality:

1) enough uranium in the fuel
2) presence of a moderator (water)
3) geometry

We can't argue about one and two, there's undoubtly new fuel in the pool and of course there's water... but I'm not so sure for the third one. I would store fuel in water only if it's assured that the fuel doesn't get critical. So I'd store it in a way (geometry) which doesn't support recriticality. So for recriticality to occur, the fuel must've moved!
The videos now don't show the whole pool (or what's below) but the upper side of the assemblies doesn't look as if it's been moved.
Further we'd need force to move fuel. That could either've been the initial earthquake or the hydrogen explosion.
As for the first one, I don't think that TEPCO engineers wouldn't spot a recriticality in the SFP, even with a station blackout and three other units melting down around them. And for the second one - the explosion wasn't as violent as in Units 1 and 3. Would it be possible for a shock wave to move fuel assemblies several metres submerged? I don't know. Perhaps here's someone who can answer that question.

NUCENG

Jun6-11, 03:36 PM

well ya... anyways on the topic of the transport paths, temperatures, pH, and chemistry, the point is that it has to be over 1000 times more preferential for I versus Cs than any other transport we seen anywhere there so far, even for seriously long and complex paths. That makes it fairly implausible, don't you think? Extraordinary claims shouldn't be taken as default hypothesis. If something can get 99.9% of Cs out of the solution by accident, they should just use that miracle on basement water.
The simplest explanation IMO is use of contaminated water for cooling. The basements and such, well, what is really strange is that they are not testing for other isotopes, or not releasing results. If there was re-criticality they wouldn't publish those isotopes data, but its uncertain if they would if there is no re-criticality. In any case TEPCO can easily find out if there was recriticality or not.

BTW, do you think, based on photos, that the freshly spent fuel in #4 pool was damaged? It looks this way to me, the grid on top is distorted on some of the blocks... which does suggest damage to the boral plates and definitely to boraflex (which is plastic). Half-burnt fuel has the maximum reactivity. Of course what is not seen in #4 is any signs of re-criticality of any note, with any kaboom-type disassembly, so the re-criticality in the pool does seem quite implausible.

Actually no, there are several characteristics of Cs and I that would make significant differences in their transport. Cs readily deposits of colder horizontal surfaces. An order (or three) of magnitude can easily occur depending on how it gets to the sample point.

One of the principles of release analysis is the use of the SBGT system filters. The HEPA filter efficiency for CsI is assumed to be 99.9%. For other isotopes such as noble gases there may be some filtration in the charcoal filter beds but basically most noble gases are directly released to the environment. I know those systems didn't work here, but the point is there are things that can make big defferences in transport. In the long run Cs deposition could become a significant problem that will remain embedded in concrete and debris long after all the water is processed.

Use of contaminated water to cool the pools early in the event would be expected to add both Cs and I, but in what ratio? That depends on the transport to the poin of cooling water suction. If that path was fairly slow and had a lot of cool horizontal surfaces the Cs getting to the suction could have been at a much lower concentration. Before you jump on me, I do not know if that explains it or not . There are way too many unknowns for me to make that call.

SFP4 is a tough call. I was surprised by how little evidence of damage was shown in the video and photos considering that the roof was so heavily damaged. Most of the debris was blown out or over the pool. There is some debris in the pool and it could have damaged rods releasing fission products from the gap. There was an extended loss of fuel pool cooling, but my calculations tell me that the fuel was not uncovered. Debris could have blocked natural circulation water flow in some channeled fuel bundles allowing localized heatup.

The Boral inserts are in the sides of each rack position As such the rack and fuel bundles in the cells will actually tend to protect the Boral. If the pool didn't uncover fuel the boral would not have been much over 100 degC depending on submergence pressure. Further if the boral had been extensively damaged and allowed recriticality I would have expected more radioactivity in the pool because there is no forced flow in the pool to cool a critical fuel assembly. Inside the reactor the recirculation system cools the rods with millions of pounds of recirculation flow per hour.

My best guess for SFP4 is that it experienced hydrogen evolution by radiolysis and pool boiling and some limited mechanical damage due to debris that released some fission products into the pool. Additional pool contamination from cooling water is a strong possibility as well based on the large leaks, feed and bleed addition of water to fuel pools, and the high concentrations measured in the shore area.

NUCENG

Jun6-11, 04:09 PM

Yeah. It's a shame that he doesn't write anymore - at least that's what I wanted to type, but I'm seeing now that he's back with two more novels. I thought he stopped after Teeth of the Tiger. At least I read reports about a nasty divorce involving character rights and health problems...
Apparently learning something about nuclear disaster engineering isn't the only thing one can experience in this forum - seeing my favourite author being back in business quite made my day.
Well and if that isn't a coincidence - his second newest book is about terrorists trying to bomb a nuclear waste facility in the USA...

Regarding recriticality in SFP #4

As already mentioned, there are videos showing the pool's interior. There seems to be outer damage at the fuel assemblies, but I would expect more if there was a criticality going on. If I'm informed right, there are three conditions to be met for recriticality:

1) enough uranium in the fuel
2) presence of a moderator (water)
3) geometry

We can't argue about one and two, there's undoubtly new fuel in the pool and of course there's water... but I'm not so sure for the third one. I would store fuel in water only if it's assured that the fuel doesn't get critical. So I'd store it in a way (geometry) which doesn't support recriticality. So for recriticality to occur, the fuel must've moved!
The videos now don't show the whole pool (or what's below) but the upper side of the assemblies doesn't look as if it's been moved.
Further we'd need force to move fuel. That could either've been the initial earthquake or the hydrogen explosion.
As for the first one, I don't think that TEPCO engineers wouldn't spot a recriticality in the SFP, even with a station blackout and three other units melting down around them. And for the second one - the explosion wasn't as violent as in Units 1 and 3. Would it be possible for a shock wave to move fuel assemblies several metres submerged? I don't know. Perhaps here's someone who can answer that question.

Due to delays in the national commitment to accept spent fuel for geological storage US plants had to install dense pack fuel storage racks in spent fuel pools. That made the use of boral panels and inserts necessary to maintain the reactivity below criticality with the reqiuired margin. Later they had to begin installing dry fuel storage due to continued delays. If there is a criticism here it is that the lack of a go/no go decision on Yucca Mountain has led to the de facto risks of dense pack fuel pools and interim storage at over a hundred sites across the US. Nobody said, "STOP, we need to reevaluate this risk," instead of letting it force us into half measures to get through this short delay after that delay and so on. We are no closer to a solution today.

Back on topic, I don't know if Fukushima had dense pack storage or not. They have a common fuel storage pool on site and had fairly limited numbers of bundles in the units pools except for unit 4. Japan also sent their spent fuel to reprocessing. It is possible that the geometry was sufficient to prevent recriticality even in Unit 4, but I would have expected TEPCO to be shouting that from the rooftops if it were so. To be safe we have to assume that recriticality is a possibility and be alert to evidence that it is happening.

Because of the fresh fuel in Unit 4 the pool did boil in a little over a day after loss of fuel pool cooling. The steam would have introduced significant dilution and compressible vapor into the building. It is likely that helped mitigate the deflagration/detonation. It was also a significantly smaller production of hydrogen gas because there was little or no zirc-water reaction. As to the potential to move fuel racks, I am very doubtful that occurred. Incompressible Water level above the fuel would have actually spread the pressure pulse through the pool protecting the fuel and probably reflecting most of it back into the building. Fuel bundles are very fragile for side loading and I would expect to see evidence of broken fuel had there been much dislocation.

tsutsuji

Jun7-11, 03:33 AM

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20110607k0000e040078000c.html :

Disclosure of the main topics of the Japanese government's report to IAEA : in the future, the NISA is to become an independent body.

jlduh

Jun7-11, 04:25 AM

Due to delays in the national commitment to accept spent fuel for geological storage US plants had to install dense pack fuel storage racks in spent fuel pools. That made the use of boral panels and inserts necessary to maintain the reactivity below criticality with the reqiuired margin. Later they had to begin installing dry fuel storage due to continued delays. If there is a criticism here it is that the lack of a go/no go decision on Yucca Mountain has led to the de facto risks of dense pack fuel pools and interim storage at over a hundred sites across the US. Nobody said, "STOP, we need to reevaluate this risk," instead of letting it force us into half measures to get through this short delay after that delay and so on. We are no closer to a solution today.

Back on topic, I don't know if Fukushima had dense pack storage or not. They have a common fuel storage pool on site and had fairly limited numbers of bundles in the units pools except for unit 4. Japan also sent their spent fuel to reprocessing. It is possible that the geometry was sufficient to prevent recriticality even in Unit 4, but I would have expected TEPCO to be shouting that from the rooftops if it were so. To be safe we have to assume that recriticality is a possibility and be alert to evidence that it is happening.

Because of the fresh fuel in Unit 4 the pool did boil in a little over a day after loss of fuel pool cooling. The steam would have introduced significant dilution and compressible vapor into the building. It is likely that helped mitigate the deflagration/detonation. It was also a significantly smaller production of hydrogen gas because there was little or no zirc-water reaction. As to the potential to move fuel racks, I am very doubtful that occurred. Incompressible Water level above the fuel would have actually spread the pressure pulse through the pool protecting the fuel and probably reflecting most of it back into the building. Fuel bundles are very fragile for side loading and I would expect to see evidence of broken fuel had there been much dislocation.

Wanted to mention here this interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcKpypwyZM8

Don't know this guy, but he seems to know what he is talking about concerning the high risk related to spent fuel pools in the US. As a french, with already much spend fuel on our territory because of the 58 reactors we have but with in addition a large amount stored at la Hague for treatment, I didn't know that the US had so many tons total (71 000 tons) and so many tons in average at each reactor in the SFP's (the guy says it's often 500 to 700 tons in the US reactors, so basically more than 5 times the average at Daichi plant, except gor N°4).

The reflexions about NRC's attitude on this subject (which acted to suppress the report made) are very much similar to the main conclusion that the chairperson of Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission, Haruki Madarame, has told NHK (see my post here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3341445&postcount=284 ): a closed world with too much co-dependency between NRC and nuke industry, in the selection process it seems (with one recent exception), and also in the fact that NRC is more and more relying on inspection programs from the industry instead of independant inspections, due to budget cuts.

Again I don't know this guy and the US situation, but I' would be glad to hear US citizens what they think on this matter. the guy states that an accident or terrorist attack in the US in one of this plants could because of this SFP storage lead to an exclusion zone 5 times the one in Chernobyl (the Chernobyl zone is half size the New Jersey, based on its words).

Nuclear spent fuel and waste treatment is, in my mind, one of the main reasons why nuclear power cannot be a long term and widely used technology.

When i was a kid, they were talking about the fact that in 10 or 15 years in the future they would do "transmutation" (that was kind of a magic word as it was presented!) and that's why they were storing spent fuel, in order in the short/mid term to convert it to safe stuff with this technology. Where is "transmutation" to convert danger to safe stuff? We are at the same state where we were 25 years ago: still going around the problem and just storing, storing storing...

All this seems to me a "dead end".

Calvadosser

Jun7-11, 06:44 AM

I managed large engineering teams. You always have your analytical group that needs to think and re-thing everything 10 times until they propose something, those types are great for design work. But for crisis work I had the "drivers", they can think on their feet, they are able to elaborate complex plans in days, rather than months. When you use one group to do the task the other should do, you get a disaster. That is what seems to be happening here, they don't have the right type of people working on the problem. Contingency planning is a basic element of any plan.

Some time back, I read "Failure is not an Option" by Gene Kranz, the flight controller of the Apollo missions. They simulated and trained for combinations of failures that seemed to be ludicrously unlikely to occur. The result: when Apollo 13's command module lost its power on the way to the moon, they got the crew back.

I had (naively) assumed that all nuclear power organisations had a team who spent their time training for unlikely eventualities, using simulators to evaluate their plans. I'd believed there would be a pre-existing plan for just about everything - but clearly not.

Without pre-existing plans, you have to make your plans on the fly. If you have to make plans under pressure and in deteriorating conditions, you certainly don't need a group of procedure-oriented analysts debating all possibilities and suffering "analysis paralysis" while the situation continues to get worse. You also need people in charge who want to know what is the true situation, rather than bullshitting themselves that things are not really all that bad.

The Soviet military was heavily involved in the response to Chernobyl. I'm surprised that military involvement seems absent in the Fukushima crisis.

zapperzero

Jun7-11, 06:48 AM

jlduh

Jun7-11, 07:12 AM

yes, we all know many examples everywhere, that's how things happen and that's why you need strong and REALLY independant counter forces to overcome this human tendancy. The independancy is also affected itself by this tendancy so it's always on going process of equilibrium between "throttle and brakes" on this matter, the tendancy being that an industry (and all the salaried people who earn the money for their families) will push as hard as possible to be heavy on the throttle to promote its interests.

A lot of engineers and scientist see this as a kind of "pollution" of pure science and tech by human problems and deviations, and consider that the science or the tech is not responible for it, so they don't want to care about these aspects (which they has for the most part difficulties with, they are unconfortable discussing this to take the words of Madarame above, even if in reality they are fullly part of the process everyday!).

But again, science and technology is made by humans for humans in a human's world, so this HAS to be discussed and considered, especially when that kind of disaster happen.

As Madarame says, this is a human caused accident, not only a "technical" accident. This doesn't mean that technology involved is not responsible, it means in my mind that ultimately, all have to recognize that whatever a technology is, you CANNOT throw away all the human aspects, which are also political in the large sense.

Jorge Stolfi

Jun7-11, 08:37 AM

You also need people in charge who want to know what is the true situation, rather than bullshitting themselves that things are not really all that bad.

The Soviet military was heavily involved in the response to Chernobyl. I'm surprised that military involvement seems absent in the Fukushima crisis.

This topic may be more adequate for the political thread. (But indeed the government seems to be totally absent from the remedial efforts at the plant. Apparently it decided to let TEPCO run the entire operation, including diagnostic, planning, and on-site monitoring. Even AREVA seems to have more authority there than the Prime Minister; and NISA apparently can't even get TEPCO to send them legible faxes of the plant status forms.

This may have been the biggest mistake Kan made in this crisis. Recall that the Chernobyl managers and their bosses insisted that everything was under control, until Gorbachev pushed them aside.)

The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the
level of thinking that created them. -- Albert Einstein

clancy688

Jun7-11, 09:31 AM

Despite what suspicions some posters have expressed here about "plant men", "shills", or several other negative references, most engineers that are successful in the nuclear industry are successful because they don't accept things at face value. They "pull the string" to find out what is really behind an event. Experience is the best teacher and an engineer (whatever his or her industry) who is afraid of being wrong is in the wrong occupation. You may never be able to prove WHAT happened, but by elimination of what did NOT happen you may actually learn more. I am learning a lot her

In my opinion the overall public reception of engineers is another problem. Because there is practically none. At least no positive.
The people are taking their working technology for granted. They can surf in the internet because there is a computer, they can drive a car because there are engines. It's a little bit like deus ex machina. The thing works because it works.
Engineers are technical blockheads who are living in their own little play world, but they are not connected to all these modern wonders - that's what many people are thinking subconciously. If there's someone who gets praise for very well engineered solutions, it's mostly the investor - people like Steve Jobbs for example.
But then there's an accident, an big accident, Fukushima. According to the public, there are many people at fault. Managers, politicians - but also engineers who dared to build such a ticking bomb called a "nuclear plant". They were blended by their own hybris, they are dangerous gamblers, that's why many people think they can't trust engineers anymore.

But they are missing the point. Engineers must be curious, they must have visions. Otherwise, there'll be no technological advance. Currently, the public is condemning the one thing which defines an engineer - his curiosity to solve a problem.
This curiosity brought us to the Moon and and in the sky, and it brought us to Hiroshima and Chernobyl.
Of course we have to make sure that those visions don't go overboard, we have to evaluate what impact our solutions will have to mankind. But condemning our curious nature and thus distrusting every engineer is the wrong way.

Note quite on topic, but I had those thoughts lingering around in my head for weeks~

Dmytry

Jun7-11, 10:21 AM

Despite what suspicions some posters have expressed here about "plant men", "shills", or several other negative references, most engineers that are successful in the nuclear industry are successful because they don't accept things at face value.
well there's been one allegedly plant man who said chernobyl NPP was in middle of pripyat' and pripyat' was not evacuated for several days.
That what provoked (or re-provoked) the negative references. You can hardly blame people for negative response to such statement (and you are in no position to blame people for mixing you up with another nuke guy coz you've been openly declaring that you mix up me with someone else).

There is a lot of 'pro nuclear' websites online spreading this exact sort of nonsense (with articles written by nuclear engineers, supposedly); rather than achieving their stated goal of promotion of nuclear power, they make nuclear power look bad, very bad, to anyone who can check the facts.

Dmytry

Jun7-11, 10:49 AM

Actually no, there are several characteristics of Cs and I that would make significant differences in their transport. Cs readily deposits of colder horizontal surfaces. An order (or three) of magnitude can easily occur depending on how it gets to the sample point.

Yes but does that apply for solutions? Cs compounds are very water soluble.

One of the principles of release analysis is the use of the SBGT system filters. The HEPA filter efficiency for CsI is assumed to be 99.9%. For other isotopes such as noble gases there may be some filtration in the charcoal filter beds but basically most noble gases are directly released to the environment. I know those systems didn't work here, but the point is there are things that can make big defferences in transport. In the long run Cs deposition could become a significant problem that will remain embedded in concrete and debris long after all the water is processed.

Hmm, so there may be filters in spent fuel pool sufficient to take out the Cs but not I ? The filter has to take out same molar amount of anions as cations.

Use of contaminated water to cool the pools early in the event would be expected to add both Cs and I, but in what ratio? That depends on the transport to the poin of cooling water suction. If that path was fairly slow and had a lot of cool horizontal surfaces the Cs getting to the suction could have been at a much lower concentration. Before you jump on me, I do not know if that explains it or not . There are way too many unknowns for me to make that call.

Well, i've been looking at various soil samples and seawater samples and fish samples and it just doesn't look like anywhere the ratio was changed this much over transport from the original leaks.

SFP4 is a tough call. I was surprised by how little evidence of damage was shown in the video and photos considering that the roof was so heavily damaged. Most of the debris was blown out or over the pool. There is some debris in the pool and it could have damaged rods releasing fission products from the gap. There was an extended loss of fuel pool cooling, but my calculations tell me that the fuel was not uncovered. Debris could have blocked natural circulation water flow in some channeled fuel bundles allowing localized heatup.

The Boral inserts are in the sides of each rack position As such the rack and fuel bundles in the cells will actually tend to protect the Boral. If the pool didn't uncover fuel the boral would not have been much over 100 degC depending on submergence pressure. Further if the boral had been extensively damaged and allowed recriticality I would have expected more radioactivity in the pool because there is no forced flow in the pool to cool a critical fuel assembly. Inside the reactor the recirculation system cools the rods with millions of pounds of recirculation flow per hour.

I dunno, the tops of some of the fuel racks look thermally damaged compared to other racks. But not very damaged. It can't get thermally damaged if it is covered by water, so it had to be uncovered at least a bit.

My best guess for SFP4 is that it experienced hydrogen evolution by radiolysis and pool boiling and some limited mechanical damage due to debris that released some fission products into the pool. Additional pool contamination from cooling water is a strong possibility as well based on the large leaks, feed and bleed addition of water to fuel pools, and the high concentrations measured in the shore area.
I'm kind of sceptical regarding radiolysis hydrogen. A lot of hydrogen had to be produced. With the boiling again, it can reduce the recombination some but I don't believe it'd go from barely any hydrogen to filling up entire building and blowing it apart (despite building not being exactly hydrogen-tight). Hydrogen and oxygen don't recombine very well to start with, that's the thing (there's multiple reactions going with atomic oxygen and atomic hydrogen, some ending with h2o and some ending with h2 and o2 , and h2 and o2 are stable and dont recombine unless themselves radiolysed), even if steam totally prevents recombination that's still not many orders of magnitude increase in h2 that gets out. There's very little bubbling in the SFP as seen on video. Definitely not cubic metres per hour.

The #4 explosion is just strange. You'd think it'd be easy to prevent by removing a panel. And there was so much damage on the lower floors, more than in #3.

zapperzero

Jun7-11, 11:18 AM

h2 and o2 are stable and dont recombine unless themselves radiolysed), even if steam totally prevents recombination that's still not many orders of magnitude increase in h2 that gets out. There's very little bubbling in the SFP as seen on video. Definitely not cubic metres per hour.

Have you counted the bubbles you see in that short video? Can you get a volume estimate? For a visual reference, remember a fuel assembly is about 20cm on a side.

Ah. Here you go:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6213/

gmax137

Jun7-11, 12:52 PM

Dmytry

Jun8-11, 03:23 PM

Have you counted the bubbles you see in that short video? Can you get a volume estimate? For a visual reference, remember a fuel assembly is about 20cm on a side.

order of magnitude, easily. Remember, cubic metre of air is 1000 litres, and 1 litre is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm (obviously) . If you aren't numerically blind, its no problem to notice that it is quite a few orders of magnitude off. A couple small bubbles, the flow is what, under a litre per second? and probably a lot of it is dissolved air released by heat. The cube of 10x10x10 meters has 1000 cubic metres.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/blueprint.html
so we get thousands cubic metres of air there.
The concentration, hydrogen in air is flammable at >4% <75% volume concentration and can detonate at >18% <60% , with steam its of same order of magnitude but you need more hydrogen. Tens to hundreds cubic metres of hydrogen needed.
The problem is whenever one would bother to notice or not, and then it boils down to motivation.
[[This is btw why houses don't blow up so often due to gas stoves (to think about it, i'd say houses blow up less often to gas stoves than nuclear reactors for varying reasons). You have to leave gas fully on for quite some time before it can blow. There's a lot of litres in a room.]]

Also if i recall correctly they removed a panel in #4 prior to explosion (hopefully someone can find reference). In any case it shouldn't have been totally air tight in first place and not after quake, tsunami, and after#3 blew up so hard there was a discussion that it might've damaged #4 this bad.

zapperzero

Jun8-11, 06:04 PM

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3346210&postcount=9332

Jap gov't is delaying the translation of their report to IAEA into English. Interestingly enough, the "late" bits are the technical appendices, where all the data is.

zapperzero

Jun8-11, 06:35 PM

order of magnitude, easily. Remember, cubic metre of air is 1000 litres, and 1 litre is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm (obviously) . If you aren't numerically blind, its no problem to notice that it is quite a few orders of magnitude off. A couple small bubbles, the flow is what, under a litre per second? and probably a lot of it is dissolved air released by heat. The cube of 10x10x10 meters has 1000 cubic metres.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/blueprint.html
so we get thousands cubic metres of air there.
Tens to hundreds cubic metres of hydrogen needed.

Let's say hydrogen production is really inefficient and you only get 10%. of steam volume radiolysed so 0.1 liter/second. Your 1000 cubic metres would get to be filled to 10% hydrogen (more than enough for deflagration) in a million seconds, which is about 15 days and a half. I take 4% as a lower concentration limit needed for deflagration, I only need seven days and change.

I don't see your "many" orders of magnitude here, sorry. Perhaps I am innumerate and I lost some zeroes somewhere.

You are seeing the pool in a relatively stable state, at 60 degrees Celsius or so, on April 30 I believe. Now try and take into account the much higher temps that the uncooled pool reached. At one point TEPCO said it was boiling. Way more steam. Way more radiolysis.

By the way, those deflagration limits you cite are for normal air. Radiolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. I'm not sure anyone ever tried to see what the limits are in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar the lower limit gets lower, not higher.

Danuta

Jun9-11, 09:18 AM

Land is precious in Japan. Idle land barely exists there.

Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown puts forest industry near collapse

“If we can't go in to thin the trees for a year or longer, the underbrush will grow and the saplings that have been newly planted will suffer from lack of sunlight,” said Hiroshi Sagara, a forestry cooperative chief, the Mainichi Daily News (MDN) reports. “The forest will fall into disrepair and trees will fail to grow well.”

Adding to the woes are concerns of severe soil contamination caused by radioactive materials, a probability which would impact the forest industry for some time to come. “Improving soil quality (in forests) is harder than it is for farmland. Even if the evacuation orders are rescinded, it may be a long time before radiation levels are low enough for workers to go in there,” Sagara added.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307506#ixzz1OgtirATw

Borek

Jun9-11, 10:21 AM

Tsutsuji just posted details about water treatment facility, between othe rthings:

The buildings must be watertight to prevent leaks into ground water... etc.

Which makes me wonder, why reactor and diesel buildings have been not designed this way. Shouldn't be difficult, as they are already quite sturdy. Sounds easier and cheaper than antitsunami wall. It won't protect turbine buildings, but these - even if destroyed - are not source of problems we observe since the earthquake.

Could be that'll be one of the lessons learned.

Danuta

Jun9-11, 02:52 PM

Which makes me wonder, why reactor and diesel buildings have been not designed this way. Shouldn't be difficult, as they are already quite sturdy. Sounds easier and cheaper than antitsunami wall.

Might be cheaper AND make more sense. An anti-tsunami wall, if breached, slows water from flowing back into the sea, which is another problem. So water tightness seems an excellent overall precaution to take. Also situating mobile fuel tanks so they are not the first to take a hit like front line soldiers would have been good too.

causeceleb

Jun11-11, 09:07 AM

Tsutsuji just posted details about water treatment facility, between othe rthings:

Which makes me wonder, why reactor and diesel buildings have been not designed this way. Shouldn't be difficult, as they are already quite sturdy. Sounds easier and cheaper than antitsunami wall. It won't protect turbine buildings, but these - even if destroyed - are not source of problems we observe since the earthquake.

Could be that'll be one of the lessons learned.

we need a call from physicists and engineers all over the world for the United Nations
Security Council to take control of the situation at Fukushima Daiichi, and establish
a board of renowned physicists and engineers (where's Richard Feynman when you need him?) to direct these emergency operations (and, of course, Japan will provide any
and all resources that are needed).

tsutsuji

Jun11-11, 12:19 PM

"The Japanese Government’s longer term response to protect the public, including evacuation, has been impressive and extremely well organized" : http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf

Peter Karamoskos: Well, firstly, the problem lies in the exclusion zone. The Japanese instituted a 20 kilometre exclusion zone, and up to 30 kilometres they said people should stay indoors, but within the first week the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, both said that that was too little and you needed to have an 80 kilometre exclusion zone.

So that would, that's just basic public health 101, if you like. Furthermore, it would have enabled appropriate counter measures for people exposed to radioactive iodine.

Now I don't know precisely what the doses of people outside the exclusion zone were, but the fact that the overseas authorities were advocating an 80 kilometre exclusion zone, tells me that it wasn't of a safe level. And, perhaps, people who could have benefited from iodine, failed to receive it, and children particularly.

Doctor Karamoskos is the public representative of the Radiation Health Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, although he is not representing ARPANSA tonight.
Broadcast: 10/06/2011 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3241511.htm

I also wish we knew a little more of what happened at Futaba hospital and the exact number of casualties before the IAEA or anybody concludes that the evacuation was "extremely well organised". The 45 possible death figure mentioned by Mainichi on 26 April : http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html does not fit well with "extremely well organized".

The following 7 May article http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201105060448.html mentions 60 people reported by municipalities as having died immediately after evacuation, but the causal relationship between evacuation and death had yet to be investigated. The government will pay compensations in cases when the causal relationship is established. Compensations will also be provided when people's health deteriorated because of the evacuation.

The following 9 June article http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/110609/dst11060918200014-n1.htm tells about 10 people, among which 7 bedridden elderly, who died while waiting for the Japanese military or other evacuation teams : 4 at Futaba hospital, 3 at Nishi hospital, and 3 at Imamura hospital, citing dehydration or the lack of medication as factors aggravating their illnesses.

ElliotLake

Jun11-11, 09:11 PM

I'm not going to click the link, it would be too distressing to read the details, but I took care of my elderly mother as she was dying, and for them to leave bedbound people to die of dehydration means they left them for a really long time. A long, agonizing time. Not only in pain, but panicking and abandoned.

I've no words I can use in public for that.

Hiyodori

Jun11-11, 10:49 PM

for them to leave bedbound people to die of dehydration means they left them for a really long time. A long, agonizing time. Not only in pain, but panicking and abandoned.

I've no words I can use in public for that.

They did not "die of dehydration". The article states that tap water was unavailable, and that an insufficient fluid intake, coupled with insufficient medicine available to treat the illnesses that the 72 to 93 year old people had (including 7 who were bedridden due to dementia and/or other problems), contributed to making their illnesses worse. It also states that the cause of death was mostly stroke or "cardiac dysfunction".

That doesn't diminish government or other responsibility in dealing with the actual situation at hand, nor in planning for such circumstances in the shadows of a nuclear plant. But it appears that it was a combination of things, and not due to dehydration.

ElliotLake

Jun11-11, 11:39 PM

@Hiyodori:

The following 9 June article http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/110609/dst11060918200014-n1.htm tells about 10 people, among which 7 bedridden elderly, who died while waiting for the Japanese military or other evacuation teams : 4 at Futaba hospital, 3 at Nishi hospital, and 3 at Imamura hospital, citing dehydration or the lack of medication as factors aggravating their illnesses.
Insufficient fluid intake IS dehydration--and splitting hairs, the heart stops-- "cardiac dysfunction" -- when you die of dehydration. My father was a physician who did a lot of emergency work, I am familiar with these things.

robinson

Jun11-11, 11:52 PM

For some reason, just the thought that even one person died from Fukushima is hard for the supporters of nuclear power to entertain. This is based on internet conversations only.

Hiyodori

Jun12-11, 01:24 AM

@Hiyodori:

Insufficient fluid intake IS dehydration--and splitting hairs, the heart stops-- "cardiac dysfunction" -- when you die of dehydration. My father was a physician who did a lot of emergency work, I am familiar with these things.

And what is death due to lack of medication? And does dehydration at any level lead to stroke? The quoted article does *not* imply that these people died due only to lack of fluid intake. The article, not me, only suggests that this was one contributing cause. As does tsutsuji in his/her original post. Thus your implication that everyone was dying of thirst, alone, panicking, abandoned cannot be extrapolated from the article. If you will not read it (or cannot, since it's in Japanese), then I would suggest that you shouldn't comment on its content.

Support, or lack thereof, of nuclear power and/or TEPCO and/or the Japanese government's pre-disaster preparation and post-disaster response has nothing to do with our responsibility to comment on the facts as known. In this case the "facts" are provided by the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.

tsutsuji

Jun12-11, 05:17 AM

Let's try a full translation of the MSN-Sankei article :

救助待つ間に１０人死亡　３月　原発１０キロ圏内の３病院
Rescue-waiting 10 people die : March : 3 hospitals in the 10 km radius zone
2011.6.9 18:17

福島第１原発から半径１０キロ圏内にある五つの病院のうち３病院の患者計１０人が、政府の避難指示を受けて救助の自衛隊などを待っていた３月１２～１５日に院内で相次いで死亡していたことが９日、各病院への取材で分かった。１０人のうち少なくとも７人は寝たきりの高齢者。断水で水分補給ができなかったり薬剤が不足したりした上、持病が悪化した患者もいたという。
An interview to each hospital on June 9th revealed that 10 patients at 3 among the 5 hospitals within the 10 km radius of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, being subject to the government's evacuation order, died one after one other between March 12th and March 15th while waiting for the Self Defense Forces or other evacuation teams. At least seven people are 10 bedridden elderly people. It was said that it includes patients whose chronic illness worsened for reasons such as, in the context of water supply cut off: hydration impossibility, and shortage of medication.

１０人が亡くなったのは双葉病院（福島県大熊町、４人）、西病院（同県浪江町、３人）、今村病院（同県富岡町、３人）。双葉、今村の両病院で死亡した７人は認知症などで寝たきりの７２～９３歳で、死因は脳梗塞や心機能不全など。西病院は「カルテなどを院内から持ち出せず、死因や年齢は不明」としている。
The hospitals where the 10 people died are Futaba Hospital (Ookuma City, Fukushima prefecture, 4 people), Nishi Hospital (Namie City, same prefecture, 3 people), Imamura Hospital (Tomioka City, same prefecture, 3 people). The 7 people who died at Futaba Hospital and Nishi Hospital were 72~93 year old patients suffering from dementia and the causes of death include cerebral stroke and cardiac dysfunction. Concerning Nishi Hospital, we were told that the patients' medical records could not be transported and that the patients' ages and causes of death are therefore unknown.

政府は地震発生から１５時間後の１２日午前５時４４分、１０キロ圏内に避難を指示。圏内にある５病院とも入院患者の搬送手段がなく、自治体や自衛隊に救助を要請した。
15 hours after the earthquake, at 5:44 AM on March 12th, the government issued the evacuation order in the 10 km radius zone. None of the 5 hospitals in the zone had means of transportation for the patients, and they applied to local governments or to the Self Defense Forces for rescue.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/110609/dst11060918200014-n1.htm

There is more in the following Okinawa Times article maked with "(Kyodo news)" and dated 19:12 9 June 2011. The first and last paragraphs are exactly the same as the first and second paragraphs of MSN-Sankei. Here is what the middle paragraph is saying :

福島県は原発から１０キロ圏内を防災対策の重点地域（ＥＰＺ）に指定。原発事故時の避難に備え、圏内の病院は入院患者の移送先や搬送用車両の確保などの計画を「あらかじめ定めておく」と地域防災計画に規定している。しかし「避難計画を備えていた」とするのは１病院のみ。県も各病院に計画の整備状況を確認していなかった。

In Fukushima prefecture, priority areas for disaster management (EPZ) are defined 10 km around nuclear power plants. In the regional disaster prevention plan, hospitals within the zones are instructed to "prepare in advance" the means of transportation and the destination of patients in case of an evacuation following a nuclear power plant accident. However, hospitals saying "the evacuation plan was prepared" are only one hospital. Neither had the prefectural administration checked the preparedness of each hospital's plans.

http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/article/2011-06-09_18978/

See also the following picture http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1300064019/949/4766949_600x400.jpg captioned with "Futaba Kosei Hospital patients disembark after being evacuated from a hospital near the troubled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex. They might have been exposed to radiation while waiting for evacuation." on http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/japan-earthquake/5113449/Japan-admits-being-unprepared-for-nuclear-disaster (you must click on the pictures to browse them. For this picture and caption to appear, you must click 20 times or so). Other related picture captioned with "Futaba Kosei Hospital patients who might have been exposed to radiation are carried into the compound of Fukushima Gender Equality Center in Nihonmatsu in Fukushima Prefecture Sunday morning, March 13, 2011, after being evacuated from the hospital in Futaba town near the troubled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station. They were waiting for evacuation when an explosion of Unit 1 reactor of the complex blew off the top part of its walls on Saturday, one day after a strong earthquake and tsunami hit northeastern Japan. " at http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2011/03/japan_races_to_prevent_nuke_re.html.

The Futaba Hospital in Okuma town (North West of the plant) and the Futaba Kosei Hospital in Futaba town (South West of the plant) are two different hospitals.

tsutsuji

Jun12-11, 07:17 AM

There is more in the following Chugoku Shinbun article, among other paragraphs which are exactly the same as those translated above :

３病院の入院患者の避難状況は、死者がなかった２病院と比べ、ほぼ半日以上遅れており、県などを含む関係機関の対応の迅速さが明暗を分けた可能性もある。

Evacuations at those three hospitals were performed about half a day later than at the remaining 2 hospitals where no deaths occured, possibly reflecting a contrast in the response speed of the concerned organizations including the prefectural administration.

(...)

双葉病院では同日午前、職員が役場に行き、入院患者の避難をサポートするよう要請。自力で歩ける患者は同日中に避難したが、寝たきりの入院患者約１３０人を運ぶバスの到着は14、15日になった。
At Futaba Hospital on the morning of March 12th, hospital employees went to the town hall requesting evacuation support. The patients that were able to walk by their own strength were evacuated on the same day, but the bus(es) transporting the 130 bedridden patients arrived on March 14th and 15th.

西病院も役場などに救助を要請。患者約70人が14日から、自衛隊とヘリやバスで避難した。
Nishi Hospital requested help at the town hall too. About 70 patients were evacuated by helicopter or bus by the Self Defense Force on March 14th.

今村病院の約１００人は13日夜から14日朝にかけ、自衛隊ヘリが何度も往復して搬送した。
The transportation of about 100 patients from Imamura Hospital was carried out by a number of rotations of the Self Defense Force helicopter from the night of March 13th to the morning of March 14th.

残る双葉厚生病院と県立大野病院は13日午前までに全員の避難が終了。
Full evacuation of the remaining Futaba Kosei Hospital and Ono Prefectural Hospital had been completed by the morning of March 13th.

避難計画について今村病院は「備えていた」と説明。しかし移送先に想定していた病院が地震による被害で受け入れられない状態となり、患者は別の避難所に運ばれたという。双葉病院は「計画の有無を確認できない」とし、西、双葉厚生、県立大野の各病院は「なかった」としている。
Concerning the evacuation plan, Imamura Hospital explains "it was prepared". However because the destination hospital had been damaged by the earthquake, it could not accept patients and they had to be taken to a different evacuation place. Futaba Hospital says "we are unable to check the existence or absence of a plan". Nishi Hospital, Futaba Kosei Hospital, and Ono Prefectural Hospital all say "there was none".

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Sp201106100047.html

robinson

Jun14-11, 07:27 AM

radio_guy

Jun14-11, 07:52 AM

I'm looking at the webcam right now. There is no fog, wind is offshore, you can see the moon and clouds, but you can't see any steam. I can however clearly see the distortion in the clouds where the steam is pouring out of building three and four. No, it's not the camera causing it. Other areas are rock solid and show no distortion.

Of course the Japanese and one of the worlds most powerful corporations can't afford to put an actual real modern webcams up. They could only do one, and it's static and horrible.

This, of all things, shows their true attitude to the world.

I admit that I am a little miffed by the quality and placement of the camera, but you have to remember a few things.

1.) They didn't have to provide anything.
2.) It is eating up (i'm sure) still limited communication channels.
3.) I think they have bigger problems.

This is the type of thing that the news media covers, but due to the nature of the situation they cant do safely. Name any other large scale industrial accident where the company provided coverage? they don't

zapperzero

Jun14-11, 08:18 AM

This is the type of thing that the news media covers, but due to the nature of the situation they cant do safely. Name any other large scale industrial accident where the company provided coverage? they don't

Oh it is in their interest to provide something. The playbook for such a big disaster is bound to be a bit different than the one for a refinery fire. The availability of trustworthy, technically apt information sources outside their direct control (ZAMG, IAEA etc) also changes things a bit.

The very fact that it is available limits the pool of interested parties that are willing to try and set up live monitoring of their own. The news media was covering this, quite safely, (remember there was a JNN live feed?) but they gave up.

Big media could be having a field day with Fukushima. They could be crawling all over Japan looking for the temp workers and the refugees, wringing every possible tear out of every displaced 100 year old Japanese grandmother, asking every Fukushima school child about how afraid they feel when they go to school with dosimeters on.

Just to clarify: I am not arguing that TEPCO are evil or whatever. Just that there are professionals handling TEPCO public relations and that they are doing one heck of a good job.

Pu239

Jun14-11, 09:54 AM

There is still a TBS JNN Live Feed

http://www.youtube.com/user/tbsnewsi#p/l/ZIa6yble2gk

It gets taken down from time to time. It went down during the large release I mentioned earlier.

westfield

Jun14-11, 10:22 AM

snip >
]
. Name any other large scale industrial accident where the company provided coverage? they don't

Not nitpicking but did you forget a little thing called the deepwater horizon incident and the Chilean miners, to name just two?

Pu239

Jun14-11, 10:32 AM

Here's a detailed map, well labelled, of the Fukushima complex:

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fukushima_daiichi_map_plan.jpg

A couple of spelling errors, but a very good map:

"Radioactive [sorid] waste treatment facility"
"[Techinical] and Skill Training Center"

--unless someone has a better one ....

radio_guy

Jun15-11, 07:34 AM

Not nitpicking but did you forget a little thing called the deepwater horizon incident and the Chilean miners, to name just two?

I knew there would be some.. I forgot about BP

jlduh

Jun17-11, 02:59 AM

Don't think it has already been mentionned...

Italian people rejet massively Berlusconi plan for nuclear energy in June 12 referendum, where for the first time in 16 years, more than 50% (57%) of the voters participated.

Almost 95% of the voters expressed their wish to withdraw from any nuclear power.

This a a new crucial political step against nuclear development in Europe, after Swiss and (above all) Germany decision to close all its nuke plants before 2022 (6 already stopped now).

President Sarkozy had already annouced (proudly, as usual...) that "he" sold 4 Areva EPR to Italy for its future program, he will have to review its position after this referendum!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/berlusconi-nuclear-power

jlduh

Jun17-11, 04:06 AM

Around 1700 children would still be in the 20-30kms zone...

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110609005998.htm

How to convince people to evacuate in a country where land is scarce?

Borek

Jun17-11, 04:52 AM

Italian people rejet massively Berlusconi plan for nuclear energy in June 12 referendum, where for the first time in 16 years, more than 50% (57%) of the voters participated.

Almost 95% of the voters expressed their wish to withdraw from any nuclear power.

I wonder if the result would be so one sided if not for the fact in coincided in time with Fukushima disaster.

jlduh

Jun17-11, 06:02 AM

Japan Steel works, which is the only company in the world able to manufacture big reactor vessels from one single piece of metal (above 1000 MWh) and that made all the 53 reactors vessels in Japan, takes a downturn, just compare these two informations:

2008:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Japan_Steel_Works_to_triple_capacity-0312085.html

June 2011:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/06/01/bloomberg1376-LM52RA07SXKX01-5QCK77VCM4BFNKHOTOK8GNUOJM.DTL

jlduh

Jun17-11, 06:17 AM

I wonder if the result would be so one sided if not for the fact in coincided in time with Fukushima disaster.

Are you surprised that Fuskushima disaster has an impact on people mind in the world about nuclear energy???

If there was no Chernobyl, no Fukushima, no other problems and fears (waste storage and "retreatment" dead end for example, etc.) , if there was no huge implications for social communities after nuclear accidents, if ... if ... if nuclear energy was different than what is is in fact, then i can assure you that 95% of Italian (and others) would be favourable to this industry!

But... this is just NOT the case! These things exists and make what we call reality.

Hard time for nuclear proponents and those who earn their salary from this industry to admit reality (and especially "impossible" recent reality), it seems...

westfield

Jun17-11, 06:33 AM

I wonder if the result would be so one sided if not for the fact in coincided in time with Fukushima disaster.

Apparently Italy had already had a referendum and said no to muclear power just after Chernobyl but technically that ruling only lasted 5 years.

They are a rather seismically active country, Berlusconi isn't too popular, Fukushima, take your pick.

If Italy could somehow harness the energy of automobile horns their energy issues would be over ;)

Copyright AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jc8f64FqRdHw4lyc7rx--EFRfG7g?docId=b70264b1519247ff995a06bf8aaeb7ee)

Borek

Jun17-11, 06:49 AM

Are you surprised that Fuskushima disaster has an impact on people mind in the world about nuclear energy???

No, I am not. However, asking such question just after the accident will always give skewed answer, this is a known psychological effect. That means the answer given at this particular moment doesn't reflect average sentiments of Italians (whatever they are).

I am not even trying to analyze political aspects of the referendum, for sure they add to the result as well.

Hard time for nuclear proponents and those who earn their salary from this industry to admit reality (and especially "impossible" recent reality), it seems...

This is pure propaganda. Just like razzz, you are fighting statements that you judge as biased with your own biased statements.

jlduh

Jun17-11, 06:58 AM

35 out of 54 reactors currently stopped in Japan, production down to 16 500 MWh from a total capacity of more than 49 000 MWh (33% of the full capacity):

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20110614dy02.htm

The problem is also that many qualified people are right now full time on the Fukushima disaster, which will limit the ability to work on regular maintenance program and inspections on other reactors. By the way, Tepco i now also facing an other concern: how to replace workers who already have reached (and even more than reached for some!) their dose limits?

jlduh

Jun17-11, 07:12 AM

No, I am not. However, asking such question just after the accident will always give skewed answer, this is a known psychological effect. That means the answer given at this particular moment doesn't reflect average sentiments of Italians (whatever they are).

I am not even trying to analyze political aspects of the referendum, for sure they add to the result as well.

This is pure propaganda. Just like razzz, you are fighting statements that you judge as biased with your own biased statements.

I can of course admit your last sentence. But at least my bias is free from any money, which is not the case of every bias, let's recognize it. It is still a bias maybe, but only a free time citizen one...

Now, personally, i don't see biases as abnormal. Democracy is (or should be) a system where biases from individuals or groups can continuously interact in a free way to create balanced power, with means Power AND Counter Power (not sure of my english translation, sorry) actions in decision making. What is abnormal is when biases are not confronting themselves in a balanced manner.

That is for example what i understand from reading this statement from Madarame (chairperson of Japan Nuclear Safety Commission):

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3341445&postcount=284

He said the guidelines were not revised because experts on nuclear power generation are an enclosed group and they tend to avoid vigorous discussions and uncomfortable subjects. He concluded that the Fukushima accidents were caused by human error.

Of course you can say also that his statement is biased because this is said just after the Fukushima accident, and that he wouldn't have said that publicly in "normal times" :smile:

So bias is everywhere, let's recognize it, maybe?

robinson

Jun17-11, 10:17 AM

To err on the side of caution, when it comes to nuclear accidents, is no vice.

zapperzero

Jun21-11, 11:22 AM

Speaking of errors.
The IAEA report (The resulting ground acceleration at Units 1, 4 and 6 did not exceed the standard seismic ground motion, whereas at Units 2, 3 and 5, the resulting ground acceleration did exceed the standard seismic ground motion. The tsunami exceeded the design basis at all units.) says

The resulting ground acceleration at Units 1, 4 and 6 did not exceed the standard seismic ground motion, whereas at Units 2, 3 and 5, the resulting ground acceleration did exceed the standard seismic ground motion. The tsunami exceeded the design basis at all units.

Yomiuri Shinbun reports this (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110316005275.htm):
FUKUSHIMA--Strong horizontal jolts dislodged ceiling pipes and massive amounts of water started flooding out--this was the frightening scene experienced by a worker who was in the building housing the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant when the earthquake hit Friday.

Am I to understand that an earthquake that was not supposed to damage the #1 reactor, did in fact damage it?

SteveElbows

Jun21-11, 11:43 AM

Speaking of errors.
The IAEA report (The resulting ground acceleration at Units 1, 4 and 6 did not exceed the standard seismic ground motion, whereas at Units 2, 3 and 5, the resulting ground acceleration did exceed the standard seismic ground motion. The tsunami exceeded the design basis at all units.) says

Yomiuri Shinbun reports this (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110316005275.htm):

Am I to understand that an earthquake that was not supposed to damage the #1 reactor, did in fact damage it?

Well the reports words you quote about which units had higher than standard seismic ground motion does not actually make any claims as to damage, its only talking about what earthquake instruments measured within the different reactors.

As for what damage the earthquake may have caused, it clearly remains possible that there was some, but we still lack useful evidence. The article you link to is interesting, but it does not give enough information for us to judge what exactly was damaged, if anything. We need this eye witness report to be confirmed, and we need to know what system the pipes belonged to.

Borek

Jun21-11, 02:00 PM

I wonder what it means for the building to be earthquake resistant. Perhaps it should survive with no structural damage, but without guarantee that everything inside stays intact? Or perhaps things inside are rated differently - some are designed to survive, some less important can be damaged?

Luca Bevil

Jun21-11, 04:33 PM

jlduh

Jun21-11, 09:14 PM

Municipal heads go anti-nuclear
Municipal heads and reconstruction experts are discussing ways to reduce the use of nuclear power after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

...

On June 15th, a panel of experts in Fukushima Prefecture agreed on a draft of basic concepts for reconstruction that includes the idea of abandoning nuclear power and promoting renewable energy. The head of a town in Yamaguchi Prefecture, where the Chugoku Electric Power Company aims to operate a nuclear plant in 7 years, indicated the possibility of reviewing the town's nuclear-tolerant stance.

Kaminoseki Mayor Shigemi Kashiwabara told the municipal assembly on Tuesday that the town needs to consider breaking free from nuclear power.The mayor of Osaka City, Kunio Hiramatsu, has suggested that Kansai Electric Power Company should pursue new energy sources to replace nuclear power.

Goshi Hosono, the prime minister's advisor for the Fukushima accident, said it is natural for municipal heads and others to voice their objections to nuclear power amid the disaster at the Fukushima plant.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_02.html

splitringtail

Jun21-11, 09:55 PM

Don't think it has already been mentionned...

Italian people rejet massively Berlusconi plan for nuclear energy in June 12 referendum, where for the first time in 16 years, more than 50% (57%) of the voters participated.

Almost 95% of the voters expressed their wish to withdraw from any nuclear power.

I can live that, but this makes me want go into fast food industry if this catches on:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/italian-scientists-to-stand-trial.html?ref=hp

Seems like to me the political environment is not science friendly at all, which is ironic considering it was the birthplace of the Renaissance.

Luca Bevil

Jun22-11, 12:53 AM

I can live that, but this makes me want go into fast food industry if this catches on:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/italian-scientists-to-stand-trial.html?ref=hp

Seems like to me the political environment is not science friendly at all, which is ironic considering it was the birthplace of the Renaissance.

Sorry being Italian I can't refrain from commenting this statement.

There is no anti scientific mood in the country at all.

The referendum decision about nuclear power has been taken (more or less informedly, but lack of precise scientific knowledge was common in both camps) on rational concerns, among which I would certainly put first and foremost the risk of major accidents, just demonstrated in Fukushima.
One might or might not agree with that stance but it means nothing with respect to the country stance toward science.

The other case is a trial about the possibility of professional misconduct, for the L'Aquila quake, 3 years ago.

The politic environment, which has issues of its own has little to do with both facts.

Borek

Jun22-11, 02:24 AM

L'Aquila process is already discussed here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=502291

swl

Jun22-11, 07:48 AM

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS02_1308214183P.pdf

Have a look at the trend for nuclear support polls in Japan.

Seems slow but unequivocable.

People are starting to feel the real pain, I guess...

I find it interesting that the trend shows a progressive erosion of support for nuclear power as we get further from the earthquake and meltdowns. Perhaps people are starting to learn things about nuclear accidents that they had assumed to be impossible?

I wonder how long it will take for the trend to reverse. I also wonder how the reaction will be outside of Japan.

Danuta

Jun22-11, 07:58 AM

... Perhaps people are starting to learn things about nuclear accidents that they had assumed to be impossible?

Yes, that is it exactly. And in addition, it makes one feel like a naive fool for assuming.

splitringtail

Jun22-11, 01:27 PM

The referendum decision about nuclear power has been taken (more or less informedly, but lack of precise scientific knowledge was common in both camps) on rational concerns, among which I would certainly put first and foremost the risk of major accidents, just demonstrated in Fukushima. One might or might not agree with that stance but it means nothing with respect to the country stance toward science.

I was not referring to that actually. I support nuclear, but I will not push it on anyone. It is a country's own prerogative if they want nuclear power.

I have been trying to find some good evidence on Enzo Boschi's misconduct, If you know of any, then could you can add to the other thread.

Perhaps I made the erroneous assumption that if his and the other scientists misconduct was clear then geologists around the world would point it out pretty quick to protect themselves from similar situation. US Geologic Survey has been supportive.

Look at Fukushima, nuclear experts across the world have been critical of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It keeps the heat of them to be honest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world/asia/22japan.html

Luca Bevil

Jun22-11, 02:05 PM

I was not referring to that actually. I support nuclear, but I will not push it on anyone. It is a country's own prerogative if they want nuclear power.

I have been trying to find some good evidence on Enzo Boschi's misconduct, If you know of any, then could you can add to the other thread.

Perhaps I made the erroneous assumption that if his and the other scientists misconduct was clear then geologists around the world would point it out pretty quick to protect themselves from similar situation. US Geologic Survey has been supportive.

Look at Fukushima, nuclear experts across the world have been critical of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It keeps the heat of them to be honest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world/asia/22japan.html

About Enzo Boschi conduct I've had no time to form a specific opinion.
It is more than likely than you know about it much more than I do.

I should perhaps have stated it more clearly but I just do not think that Italy's attitude toward science can be extrapolated form the two cases you mentioned.

This does not mean that I think Italy is having astounding successes in technical or scientific advances (quite the contrary in fact); it is just that I do not see around any prevailing persecutory mood toward science or scientists.

NUCENG

Jun22-11, 08:35 PM

About Enzo Boschi conduct I've had no time to form a specific opinion.
It is more than likely than you know about it much more than I do.

I should perhaps have stated it more clearly but I just do not think that Italy's attitude toward science can be extrapolated form the two cases you mentioned.

This does not mean that I think Italy is having astounding successes in technical or scientific advances (quite the contrary in fact); it is just that I do not see around any prevailing persecutory mood toward science or scientists.

Generalization or inferring a general conclusion from a single example is tempting, but invalid in most cases. Using a prosecution of a scientist to say that Italy is anti science is wrong. Using the referendum on nuclear power in Italy to infer that nuclear power is wrong in other countries is wrong. Using Fukushima management and government mistakes or even criminal negligence to say that all nuclear is unsafe and should be shutdown is equally wrong.

In Latin it is "Non sequitur."

QuantumPion

Jun22-11, 08:59 PM

Generalization or inferring a general conclusion from a single example is tempting, but invalid in most cases. Using a prosecution of a scientist to say that Italy is anti science is wrong. Using the referendum on nuclear power in Italy to infer that nuclear power is wrong in other countries is wrong. Using Fukushima management and government mistakes or even criminal negligence to say that all nuclear is unsafe and should be shutdown is equally wrong.

In Latin it is "Non sequitur."

I disagree.

In Latin it is a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

NUCENG

Jun22-11, 10:17 PM

I disagree.

In Latin it is a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

I am back in High Scool Latin with Sister Mary San Quentin and I am having cold sweats. Thanks for the correction.

NUCENG

Jul1-11, 01:18 PM

So, what happened to this? How serious is this violation? Is it something everyone violates all the time, or is it rare?

FYI NRC has responded to FOIAs

FOIA/PA 11-0118, 0119, and 0120

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-info.html

Rough count is way over 1000 pp.

zapperzero

Jul3-11, 08:08 AM

FYI NRC has responded to FOIAs

FOIA/PA 11-0118, 0119, and 0120

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-info.html

Rough count is way over 1000 pp.

I love it how the gov't is making citizens pay for data that citizens' money made possible to gather in the first place. Quaint American idea. Other than that... many of the more interesting FOIA requests are still open (like the one on rad counts in the US).

NUCENG

Jul3-11, 08:42 AM

I love it how the gov't is making citizens pay for data that citizens' money made possible to gather in the first place. Quaint American idea. Other than that... many of the more interesting FOIA requests are still open (like the one on rad counts in the US).

What are you talking about? There is no charge for downloading from ADAMS. Only charges are for duplication and research fees if the requestor doesn't meet the exemptions anmd there are lots of exemptions.

zapperzero

Jul4-11, 04:41 AM

Only charges are for duplication and research fees if the requestor doesn't meet the exemptions and there are lots of exemptions.

Duplicating bits is free or nearly so. Research fees? For documents in electronic format, at least, those should be as near zero as makes no difference as well.

I remarked on this in passing, because I was sincerely amused at the ways of your country's bureaucracy (not being a US citizen, I could care less).

However, after reviewing some of the released documents, it became apparent to me that the process of release does indeed involve an actual human being moving actual bits of paper around (printouts of e-mails and presentations etc etc). If it sounds costly, quaint, antiquated and unwieldy to you, it's because it is.

I will also note that this habit, beside wasting paper and man-hours, strips away any and all metadata from electronic documents (such as authorship, editing history, distribution list, access control, signatures, comments, EXIF etc etc) and thus by its very nature violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the FOIA.

But we're drifting way off-topic here, I believe?

nikkkom

Jul4-11, 07:38 AM

I do disagree. If life gives you lemons, you should return them and ask for a refund.

Folk wisdom disagrees with you.

But seriously, it's not such a good place to store lots of radwaste. There's a city nearby and the site geology is real bad.

In this case, you should think that the entire Japan is not a good place for NPPs, because NPPs are more vulnerable to earthquake than dry casks, which are nearly undestructible.

Considering that Japan also has no deserts to cover with photovoltaics and its total potential wind power capacity is probably less than country's energy demand, what do you propose they should base their long-term power generation needs on?

NUCENG

Jul4-11, 08:04 AM

Duplicating bits is free or nearly so. Research fees? For documents in electronic format, at least, those should be as near zero as makes no difference as well.

I remarked on this in passing, because I was sincerely amused at the ways of your country's bureaucracy (not being a US citizen, I could care less).

However, after reviewing some of the released documents, it became apparent to me that the process of release does indeed involve an actual human being moving actual bits of paper around (printouts of e-mails and presentations etc etc). If it sounds costly, quaint, antiquated and unwieldy to you, it's because it is.

I will also note that this habit, beside wasting paper and man-hours, strips away any and all metadata from electronic documents (such as authorship, editing history, distribution list, access control, signatures, comments, EXIF etc etc) and thus by its very nature violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the FOIA.

But we're drifting way off-topic here, I believe?

This IS the more political thread, so I'd like to ask how your country would have responded to these requests?

zapperzero

Jul4-11, 08:44 AM

This IS the more political thread, so I'd like to ask how your country would have responded to these requests?

My country is a godforsaken backwater, but we do have a law similar to FOIA, so I'd probably get an answer to a similar question within 30 days.

The request form provides a space for me to specify an e-mail address where I want the documents to be sent. There is a tax for hardcopies, but no research tax. All the documents on the commission's website are in electronic format (no scanned PDFs, just e-text).

One of the funny-weird features of the local NRC-equivalent website is the section containing the tax statements of the Commission members. A wise provision, in a country plagued by corruption and tax crime.

EDIT: to be honest, I'm almost sure printing out e-mails, re-scanning them and collating them into PDF copies is way beyond the technical competence of the Commission's clerical staff, so I'd get the electronic format documents faute de mieux, as it were...

EVEN LATER EDIT: Come to think of it, I might just ask them if they've seen any traces of radioactivity from Fukushima. Hmm...

Calvadosser

Jul4-11, 08:58 AM

(snip)

EDIT: the idea of printing out e-mails, then collating them in a scanned PDF? Who came up with that one? There's zero excuse here - while I can understand why rules and regulations would have treeware master copies, this is just stupid, verging on willfully incompetent.
(snip)

Responding to FOI requests with scanned PDF's has happened recently in the UK. The scanning is usually done at low resolution, making it essentially impossible to OCR the images.

It seems to be done as a way of making life difficult for FOI requesters while avoiding prosecution for failing to respond to FOI requests.

I have no idea if that applies in this instance.

zapperzero

Jul4-11, 09:15 AM

In this case, you should think that the entire Japan is not a good place for NPPs, because NPPs are more vulnerable to earthquake than dry casks, which are nearly undestructible.

Considering that Japan also has no deserts to cover with photovoltaics and its total potential wind power capacity is probably less than country's energy demand, what do you propose they should base their long-term power generation needs on?

There are better sites, even in Japan (finding those with igneous rock instead of sediments would be a good start, picking spots slightly higher up on the coast would be a nice second priority).

I happen to think that the extreme weather events and gigantic earthquakes that happen to Japan on a regular basis do make it a bad place for nuclear plants. I also believe that Japan, unlike other developed countries, had no choice but to adopt nuclear power on a large scale, to achieve some degree of energy independence and thus a stable (let alone prosperous) economy.

For the long term (50 years or so) I'd say that Japan should try to phase out and shut down obsolete reactors (Monju first of all!) and invest heavily in hydro power, solar and geothermal. Japan used to lead the world in chip-making and oyster farming. Floating solar panels shouldn't be so hard to pull off.

As I understand it, Japan has a lot of unused area, which consists mostly of rocky valleys. So wind power _may_ be a workable alternative/supplement to hydro.

But we're getting off-topic. Let's end this or continue in private, or on another thread.

joewein

Jul4-11, 09:22 AM

I do disagree. If life gives you lemons, you should return them and ask for a refund. But seriously, it's not such a good place to store lots of radwaste. There's a city nearby and the site geology is real bad.

There used to be a city called Pripyat too, before the accident... It's been a ghost town for the last 25 years.

I think a lot of people who used to live near F1 are far too optimistic about their prospects of being able to return to their homes any time soon. They can't come back, not just because the reactors aren't stable yet, but because the place is badly contaminated.

On second thought, it probably isn't not such a good place for intermediate storage of radwaste after all, because it's not very safe for people to work there. Somebody would have to guard and check the condition of the containers. There will have to be people onsite 24/7. That doesn't make sense in a place where radiation is not measured in fractions of one microsievert per hour, but hundreds of them, or even millisieverts per hour.

I know in Chernobyl they continued running the other reactor blocks for years, despite the local radiation levels but that tells you something about what kind of country it was.

nikkkom

Jul4-11, 09:53 AM

There used to be a city called Pripyat too, before the accident... It's been a ghost town for the last 25 years.

I think a lot of people who used to live near F1 are far too optimistic about their prospects of being able to return to their homes any time soon. They can't come back, not just because the reactors aren't stable yet, but because the place is badly contaminated.

On second thought, it probably isn't not such a good place for intermediate storage of radwaste after all, because it's not very safe for people to work there.

People will _have to_ work there for at least a year anyway, to clean up F1 mess. Therefore, buildings on site and all roads have to be decontaminated to make radiation levels safe for nearly continuous presence of men anyway.

Somebody would have to guard and check the condition of the containers. There will have to be people onsite 24/7. That doesn't make sense in a place where radiation is not measured in fractions of one microsievert per hour, but hundreds of them, or even millisieverts per hour.

I know in Chernobyl they continued running the other reactor blocks for years, despite the local radiation levels but that tells you something about what kind of country it was.

In a few more months, all radiation will be only in the soil, not in the air. (Monsoon season should be helping with it a lot, too).

If roads and buildings are thoroughly decontaminated and people who work in the area do not eat locally grown food, do not drink local water, and do not stroll in local fields or forests, the dose they get may be quite low.

nikkkom

Jul4-11, 09:55 AM

There are better sites, even in Japan (finding those with igneous rock instead of sediments would be a good start, picking spots slightly higher up on the coast would be a nice second priority).

There are plenty of nearby (~2km) territory which has significantly higher elevation.

Susudake

Jul4-11, 09:59 AM

Folk wisdom disagrees with you.

In this case, you should think that the entire Japan is not a good place for NPPs, because NPPs are more vulnerable to earthquake than dry casks, which are nearly undestructible.

So why all the fuss in the US about where to store radwaste? Why are the Finns going to all the trouble to bury theirs under 800m of bedrock? Could it have something to do with that (for one) pesky 24,000 year half-life thing?

As someone posted on another forum, at some future point that waste might be considered fuel.

Considering that Japan also has no deserts to cover with photovoltaics and its total potential wind power capacity is probably less than country's energy demand, what do you propose they should base their long-term power generation needs on?

Setting aside that there's also geothermal (which, yes, has it's major downsides), how about conservation?

One thing that should be rather clear by now is that the Japanese are masters at creating a nice pretty picture to cover messy realities. It's even endemic to the language, which is chock-full of euphemisms especially in the way kanji (Chinese characters) are used.

How that pertains here is in the supposed energy conservation and waste-reducing/recycling culture here. One example is "moeru gomi" (burnable waste)....that includes any and all plastics--except, don't burn PET bottles, god forbid! The Kanto plain is basically awash with PCBs from all the trash that's burned.

You can see trash cans outside the ubiquitous convenience stores (there's a cultural meme for you) that say "Save the Earth" on them (at the bottom, tellingly), and, above, "Burnable Garbage" with the various plastics one can burn listed. After all, everyone here knows whales are fish and plastic is burnable.

So as to conservation, while better than the US (who isn't?) the Japanese waste all kinds of energy. Most people stands on down escalators, you see people running so they can get on an elevator, etc. Moving walkways are treated as moving standways--again like Bovinaria aka the USA. I have a photo from the stair case leading to a mountaineering store on the third floor--a sign says "only 13 more seconds (of climbing stairs) until the store." Fortunately they moved to a new location and you can now take the elevator to buy your hiking gear.

Since the FDI disaster they've got a number of escalators turned off (in Tokyo more so than in Kansai), and calorie markings on the staircases coming up from subway platforms (at least in Kyoto)--every step has them marked, about .1-.2kcal per step. Not even any helpful signs telling you only 10 seconds more of arduous climbing left.

Folks are now walking around proudly in yukata (summer cotton kimono) to show they can deal fashionably with the heat (and it IS oppressive right now and will be well into September) and it appears the realization is dawning that one can actually walk rather than get carried around everywhere. I've read the US wastes HALF it's electricity and I'd wager Japan wastes a third, so there's your nuclear portion right there.

Lest I be flamed for posting on the wrong thread (well I will be anyway I expect), let's get (somewhat) scientific here:

Being a lazy-arse/comfort queen — moving your tuckus/sweating a bit = no more nukes!

That's an equation I for one can live with.

nikkkom

Jul4-11, 10:11 AM

So why all the fuss in the US about where to store radwaste?

I have no idea what's up with US in that regard. Dry cask storage is a no-brainer. One theory is that greens want to kill nuclear power generation by obstructing all possible ways to deal with the waste.

Why are the Finns going to all the trouble to bury theirs under 800m of bedrock? Could it have something to do with that (for one) pesky 24,000 year half-life thing?

As someone posted on another forum, at some future point that waste might be considered fuel.

Exactly. That 'pesky thing' is our future fuel.

Setting aside that there's also geothermal (which, yes, has it's major downsides), how about conservation?

One thing that should be rather clear by now is that the Japanese are masters at creating a nice pretty picture to cover messy realities. It's even endemic to the language, which is chock-full of euphemisms especially in the way kanji (Chinese characters) are used.

How that pertains here is in the supposed energy conservation and waste-reducing/recycling culture here. One example is "moeru gomi" (burnable waste)....that includes any and all plastics--except, don't burn PET bottles, god forbid! The Kanto plain is basically awash with PCBs from all the trash that's burned.

You can see trash cans outside the ubiquitous convenience stores (there's a cultural meme for you) that say "Save the Earth" on them (at the bottom, tellingly), and, above, "Burnable Garbage" with the various plastics one can burn listed. After all, everyone here knows whales are fish and plastic is burnable.

So as to conservation, while better than the US (who isn't?) the Japanese waste all kinds of energy. Most people stands on down escalators, you see people running so they can get on an elevator, etc. Moving walkways are treated as moving standways--again like Bovinaria aka the USA. I have a photo from the stair case leading to a mountaineering store on the third floor--a sign says "only 13 more seconds (of climbing stairs) until the store." Fortunately they moved to a new location and you can now take the elevator to buy your hiking gear.

Since the FDI disaster they've got a number of escalators turned off (in Tokyo more so than in Kansai), and calorie markings on the staircases coming up from subway platforms (at least in Kyoto)--every step has them marked, about .1-.2kcal per step. Not even any helpful signs telling you only 10 seconds more of arduous climbing left.

Folks are now walking around proudly in yukata (summer cotton kimono) to show they can deal fashionably with the heat (and it IS oppressive right now and will be well into September) and it appears the realization is dawning that one can actually walk rather than get carried around everywhere. I've read the US wastes HALF it's electricity and I'd wager Japan wastes a third, so there's your nuclear portion right there.

Lest I be flamed for posting on the wrong thread (well I will be anyway I expect), let's get (somewhat) scientific here:

Being a lazy-arse/comfort queen — moving your tuckus/sweating a bit = no more nukes!

That's an equation I for one can live with.

Domestic power consumption is dwarfed by industrial consumption. You can turn off all elevators in the country, it will not matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Luca Bevil

Jul4-11, 10:31 AM

According to the EU about 10 % of energy saving can be achieved from today to 2020 with self sustaining economics (i.e. non need for public financing incentives).

http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/

From what I read and see it would appear to me that a somewhat higher than 10% percentage could be easily achieved in both Japan and the US.

While not sufficient in absolute terms it could be a nice target to achieve for 2020.
The political will seems unsufficient, though.
Any thoughts ? may be I am wrong and such targets are indeed in place ?

I wonder why ....

Susudake

Jul4-11, 11:36 AM

I have no idea what's up with US in that regard. Dry cask storage is a no-brainer. One theory is that greens want to kill nuclear power generation by obstructing all possible ways to deal with the waste.

Exactly. That 'pesky thing' is our future fuel.

Methinks we'll have to move any further discussion to another thread.

Domestic power consumption is dwarfed by industrial consumption. You can turn off all elevators in the country, it will not matter much in the grand scheme of things.

And I suspect the industrial sector could, similarly, do much better at conserving energy; hey, maybe both can, there's a radical idea!

And, domestic conservation would and will matter if merely in making people aware of a) how much they waste needlessly and b) how bearable life is without, for example, freezing cold indoor spaces in the summer. Back when there was even more egregious wasting of electricity (thinking of the 80s/90s) you could walk down the street in a major Japanese city in sweltering summer heat and get blasted by ice-cold air coming out of OPEN doorways to stores large and small. Taipei and Bangkok too as they got wealthier--it was a sign of status: "look how much we can waste!"

I'm staying in hotels/gueshouses right now and at the place I'm at I absolutely can't turn the shower water below 37C, even in sweltering weather I can't take a cool shower if I want to. And yes, I could turn off the heater I suppose but that doesn't disprove my point.

As I've tried and failed to advocate elsewhere, there's a lot of reality happening between and around the numbers. I follow this thread and recognize fully the value of the incremental progress in understanding this disaster made by the small-detail-oriented contributions (and do have some familiarity with the ole scientific method), and am grateful for all the sincere contributions by the various folks here, but equating "weight" with value is a narrow view--IMO.

Anyway this is forest not trees stuff and no equations, photos, analysis thereof, speculation involving facts and figues or "facts and figures," so probably best it leaven up one of the rather anemic political threads, eh mods?

Edit: yes good it was moved to this thread. FWIW I did feel I was intruding on the venerable (no sarcasm intended) scientific thread, it must be the best source on the 'net for info re FDI so these messy discussions definitely muck it up.

More later.....

Morbius

Jul4-11, 12:31 PM

And I suspect the industrial sector could, similarly, do much better at conserving energy; hey, maybe both can, there's a radical idea!
Susudake,

Actually that has been well studied, and industry does MUCH, MUCH better at conserving energy!!!

After all, think about it - wasted energy is wasted money and wasted profit to industry, so industry which is always in competition goes to much greater lengths to conserve energy and be as efficient as possible with the energy that they use since it means real $$$$ to them.

Greg

Atomfritz

Jul4-11, 01:48 PM

the idea of printing out e-mails, then collating them in a scanned PDF? Who came up with that one? There's zero excuse here - while I can understand why rules and regulations would have treeware master copies, this is just stupid, verging on willfully incompetent.

If I sound frustrated, it's 'cause I am. I have good text processing, indexing and search tools at my disposal - and none of them work!
Responding to FOI requests with scanned PDF's has happened recently in the UK. The scanning is usually done at low resolution, making it essentially impossible to OCR the images.

It seems to be done as a way of making life difficult for FOI requesters while avoiding prosecution for failing to respond to FOI requests.
I believe the fact that nuclear-related stuff usually is published this way is not incompetent but intentional. See also post #9664 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3353114&postcount=9664) etc.
They just don't want people to be able to find it via public search engines.

Tepco is installing shields to protect workers from radiations in unit 3's reactor building. The purpose is to be able to start nitrogen injection on 8 July.
After 4 months they begin to implement serious measures to begin work inside the buildings. Finally!

The final storage problem would be solved better through international cooperation. Some countries have more suitable formations than others and if something goes wrong, the radioactive plume will does not stop at national borders and 12 nautical mile zones, as we have found out with Chernobyl and the Fukushima disaster.
Hmm, maybe they chose Mongolia because low-inhabitated Siberia will absorb the radiation plume first?
Or maybe just "assisting" some rebels in Burkina Faso that cry for "help", so we can build a mining honeypot for people that live one millennium after us?

I doubt they would want to wash contaminated dust onto the surrounding of the reactor building.
Convincing, thanks. Then this apparent "cleaning" happening in the time until the IAEA picnic photo was probably natural (wind, rain).

Maybe it would, if you had volunteered ;-)
What a pity that I don't speak Japanese. Wouldn't there be the communication problem, I'd enjoy such an adventure.
Japan has way more than 100 million people, and a Kamikaze tradition way more sophisticated than in the real socialism. Really, I think there could be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of volunteers.
The emperor probably just would have to say that this is necessary and people would start lining up.

I know in Chernobyl they continued running the other reactor blocks for years, despite the local radiation levels but that tells you something about what kind of country it was.
Dunno. Does this really matter if the "safe" doses are not exceeded?
Also, radiation-exposed workers got a weekly free bottle of internal decontamination chemicals ("vodka") and extra financial compensation if I remember reports from the glasnost era correctly.

(offtopic)
How that pertains here is in the supposed energy conservation and waste-reducing/recycling culture here. One example is "moeru gomi" (burnable waste)....that includes any and all plastics--except, don't burn PET bottles, god forbid! The Kanto plain is basically awash with PCBs from all the trash that's burned.

You can see trash cans outside the ubiquitous convenience stores (there's a cultural meme for you) that say "Save the Earth" on them (at the bottom, tellingly), and, above, "Burnable Garbage" with the various plastics one can burn listed. After all, everyone here knows whales are fish and plastic is burnable.

Your rant makes me think that there are really many anti-Japanese prejudices.
Just for your information, waste separation in Germany is done in three baskets: paper, packing material, and "other waste".
Most of the latter both are "thermally recycled" in waste incincerating power plants. They just regulate the furnaces by varying the mix of the "packing materials" (high energy) and "other waste".
So you see, most people here believe the waste gets recycled. But they do not think of "thermal recycling", they just imagine recycling like paper.
(/offtopic)

Has this been discussed already and I missed it? Arnie comments on the old SFP3 underwater video...
Yes this has been discussed, long before Arnie even heard of this.
And, he just asks "where is the other fuel?". I think this is a legitimate question.
And I don't think that he will attempt to make us believe that this is why Osama Bin Laden (or whatever) recently was finally punished in Ahmedabad.

clancy688

Jul4-11, 02:32 PM

Actually that has been well studied, and industry does MUCH, MUCH better at conserving energy!!!

After all, think about it - wasted energy is wasted money and wasted profit to industry, so industry which is always in competition goes to much greater lengths to conserve energy and be as efficient as possible with the energy that they use since it means real $$$$ to them.

I think there's a most recent example for this. An american general calculated the costs for supplying the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with AC - it's 20 billion dollars a year. :rofl:

nikkkom

Jul4-11, 02:42 PM

I think there's most recent example for this. An american general calculated the costs for supplying the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with AC - it's 20 billion dollars a year. :rofl:

That would be government, not industry. Government is usually horribly inefficient.

etudiant

Jul4-11, 04:40 PM

[QUOTE=nikkkom;3388086]I have no idea what's up with US in that regard. Dry cask storage is a no-brainer. One theory is that greens want to kill nuclear power generation by obstructing all possible ways to deal with the waste.

My impression is that US industry has not been eager to shift spent fuel to dry cask storage because the casks are painfully expensive, reportedly in the $1 million/cask range. At that price, leaving the old fuel in the SPF is a much more appealing option, especially as safety arguments are not a good basis for rate discussions.

etudiant

Jul4-11, 04:59 PM

This Mainichi article offers some interesting perspectives on the still ongoing competition for new business between the reactor suppliers: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110704p2a00m0na015000c.html

Unfortunately, the document described is not linked in the article.

clancy688

Jul4-11, 05:52 PM

That would be government, not industry. Government is usually horribly inefficient.

That's exactly what I wanted to tell. That government/military is horribly inefficient compared to the industry.

Morbius

Jul4-11, 05:54 PM

They just don't want people to be able to find it via public search engines.

Atomfritz,

Actually there may be another reason. When one transmits files electronically, one may never be quite sure what is really in the file. There is often information in the file that you don't get to see with your editor.

For example, many people learned only recently that often pictures have more in the file than just the image; they often have the GPS coordinates at which the picture was taken.

Therefore, when dealing with files that may be sensitive, or may have to have things redacted from them - the rules are made so as to prohibit any sensitive information from being passed along inadvertently because the reviewer isn't seeing the information.

One way to insure that ONLY the printed matter that the reviewer can see is all that is being transmitted is to print out the file as a paper copy and then rescan it back into electronic form.

That way one can be sure that there's no sensitive information being passed along that doesn't get reviewed because the review can't see it with the editor or image viewer that the reviewer is using to look at the content of the file.

Greg

Morbius

Jul4-11, 06:00 PM

[QUOTE=nikkkom;3388086]
My impression is that US industry has not been eager to shift spent fuel to dry cask storage because the casks are painfully expensive, reportedly in the $1 million/cask range. At that price, leaving the old fuel in the SPF is a much more appealing option, especially as safety arguments are not a good basis for rate discussions.

etudiant,

Sorry, but that is just plain WRONG. Whether a utility can leave a fuel element in the pool or not is governed solely by technical considerations, and not economic ones. If they were ever in a situation where they couldn't off-load a fuel element to the pool because they didn't have space, they would jeopardize the return of the plant to online status.

It would be cheap insurance to have extra dry casks sitting around even at $1 million apiece.

The plant can earn much more than the cost of 1 cask in a single day. One days unnecessary outage because you don't have a cask available will be enough to purchase the cask.

Greg

etudiant

Jul4-11, 08:41 PM

[QUOTE=etudiant;3388583]

etudiant,

Sorry, but that is just plain WRONG. Whether a utility can leave a fuel element in the pool or not is governed solely by technical considerations, and not economic ones. If they were ever in a situation where they couldn't off-load a fuel element to the pool because they didn't have space, they would jeopardize the return of the plant to online status.

It would be cheap insurance to have extra dry casks sitting around even at $1 million apiece.

The plant can earn much more than the cost of 1 cask in a single day. One days unnecessary outage because you don't have a cask available will be enough to purchase the cask.

Greg

If that is so, why are the spent fuel pools in the US plants so stuffed?
I remember discussions early in this disaster where people pointed out that the practice of re racking and of keeping more than one load of fuel in the pool was developed by US plants unable to ship out their spent fuel, but unwilling to spend the money to dry cask it pending eventual shipment. Seen that the regulators are as much at fault in this as anyone, I can understand them not forcing the sites to spend the money.

jim hardy

Jul4-11, 11:19 PM

"If that is so, why are the spent fuel pools in the US plants so stuffed? "

The industry was promised a robust reprocessing industry that would be glad to take the old fuel. So our existing fleet of plants was built with not a lot of storage capacity for spent fuel.

That promise vaporized during the Carter administration, purportedly over concerns about proliferation. John Mcphee's book "The Curve of Binding Energy" is often credited with having tipped the scale. (BTW it's very interesting and easy to read)

So now our nation's "nuclear generating fleet" is basically a hundred 30-45 year old Chevys, meticulously maintained but with every used tire that was ever on them stuffed in their trunks.

Used to be some utilities don't even own the fuel but lease it from a fuel supplier and simply store it for them until they can take it back for the reprocessing - that never materialized.. i dont know how fuel contracts are done anymore but i'd wager somebody is paying interest on it.

US has kinda fumbled that one.

zapperzero

Jul5-11, 12:18 AM

Atomfritz,

Actually there may be another reason. When one transmits files electronically, one may never be quite sure what is really in the file. There is often information in the file that you don't get to see with your editor.

For example, many people learned only recently that often pictures have more in the file than just the image; they often have the GPS coordinates at which the picture was taken.

Therefore, when dealing with files that may be sensitive, or may have to have things redacted from them - the rules are made so as to prohibit any sensitive information from being passed along inadvertently because the reviewer isn't seeing the information.

One way to insure that ONLY the printed matter that the reviewer can see is all that is being transmitted is to print out the file as a paper copy and then rescan it back into electronic form.

That way one can be sure that there's no sensitive information being passed along that doesn't get reviewed because the review can't see it with the editor or image viewer that the reviewer is using to look at the content of the file.

Greg

The stuff that the NRC posted so far does not appear to have been censored in any way. Other than that you are right, of course.

Susudake

Jul5-11, 05:33 AM

Your rant makes me think that there are really many anti-Japanese prejudices.

I assume you mean you think I'm anti-Japanese or prejudiced against them. Prejudice means to pre-judge.

I've lived here off and on for ten years since '88, speak the language, and have a very deep involvement with traditional Japanese culture, so how can I be pre-judging Japan?

Perhaps you could first spend a little time here (Japan) before you start (pre-)judging the statements of people who have in fact spent many years here. Couldn't hurt anything these days but your health.

As for my supposed rant, I mentioned the "moeru gomi" thing to a friend today, a long-term specialist in translating medical texts, so I consider him a reliable source for health-related information: he said that due to the extensive burning of plastic garbage, Japanese women have among the highest concentrations of dioxin in their breast milk in the world.

Just for your information, waste separation in Germany is done in three baskets: paper, packing material, and "other waste".
Most of the latter both are "thermally recycled" in waste incincerating power plants. They just regulate the furnaces by varying the mix of the "packing materials" (high energy) and "other waste".
So you see, most people here believe the waste gets recycled. But they do not think of "thermal recycling", they just imagine recycling like paper.

Well they don't do that here, all kinds of plastics are just incinerated (or burned outside, mostly in rural areas), hence all the dioxin floating around.

This kind of information bears on the FDI situation and it's hopeful successful resolution. I've neither time nor inclination to go online and rant pointlessly.

Susudake

Jul5-11, 10:27 AM

Susudake,

Actually that has been well studied, and industry does MUCH, MUCH better at conserving energy!!!

After all, think about it - wasted energy is wasted money and wasted profit to industry, so industry which is always in competition goes to much greater lengths to conserve energy and be as efficient as possible with the energy that they use since it means real $$$$ to them.

Greg

Of course, industry is motivated to conserve, but there are at least a couple of things I can think of off the top of my head that would run counter to what you're saying---at some point on the conservation curve the costs will rise quickly, and then the very same profit motive will discourage further conservation, until--as has happened numerous times--something lowers that cost and then the motivation will be to catch up. Two (again OTTOMH) things can move that point forward--technological progress, especially breakthrough technology, and government regulations which just move the goal posts for everyone (in a perfect world, of course some might cheat but that's ostensibly one reason governments are there in the first place). So there's always room for improvement, that's axiomatic in fact.

Yes, of course industry is much more efficient than the domestic sector, but who produces the inefficient refrigerators, A/C units, etc? And you have another sector, the business sector, with it's open doors in July blasting cold air outside, making every convenience store blindingly bright inside, and so on. That's got to account for more than a negligible amount of waste. Halide street lights streaming light upwards (look at the night map of Japan, it's one big white blob, in fact the factory trawlers blaring lights to attract squid and so on show up too), etc etc etc.

I'll look around the web for the data I've seen on energy wastage, but I'm sure I've read about 1/3 for Japan, in which case it doesn't matter too much who is or isn't wasting, the fact remains that a third--or whatever percentage it is--is being wasted, and at least a portion if not a majority of it can be conserved through various measures.

So my somewhat tongue-in-cheek equation may be a bit simplistic, but I'd like to hear a better counterargument than "studies" (link please?) prove industry's as efficient as can be, so we need nuke power or we'll be either choking on coal dust or living like savages.

jim hardy

Jul5-11, 04:17 PM

joewein

Jul5-11, 10:21 PM

""Domestic power consumption is dwarfed by industrial consumption. ""

i was surprised to find in the US it's not. Between 1996 and 2010 industrial use actually came down from about 96% to 66% of residential use. Residential went up ~34% while industrial went down ~7%.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_1.html

It's not too different in Japan:

Electricity Consumption 2008 (TWh)
total (TWh): 964
Industry: 31.5%
Transport: 1.95%
Commercial/Public Services: 36.4%
Agriculture/Forestry: 0.09%
Fishery: 0.000%
Residential: 29.8%
other: 0.23%
(Source: Wikipedia, IEA/OECD (2008) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_energy_consumption))

So industrial and residential use is basically neck to neck these days. Industrial use dominated up until the bubble era, but since then residential use kept growing significantly relative to industrial use.

It was only in the 1990s that Japanese started using electrically heated toilet seats, which now account for about 4% of residential electricity use.

Growth of residential electricity far outpaced growth of natural gas use and TEPCO's "ohru denka" campaign for "all electric" households (electricity for cooking, hot water, room heating, everything!) right until March of this year must have contributed.

Air conditioning (A/C) is the biggest factor determining annual peak consumption here. I have heard of several innovative approaches for more efficient air conditioning in commercial settings over the past year. For example, Tokyo Sky Tree, the new 634 m high digital broadcast tower uses an underground water tank chilled at night time (when outside temperatures are low and electricity is not in short supply) as a daytime heat sink. Some factories and office buildings have used similar approaches. The cool water tanks can double up for fire fighting and disaster relief purposes.

By contrast, air conditioning in residential settings is still largely an add-on rather than designed in for best efficiency. Tenants in rental accommodation still move their A/C units when they move to a different property, just like their ceiling lights!

I see a lot of potential for residential savings by integrating heating and cooling and smarter building design. When I run my bathtub, cold tap water gets heated to 40C by burning methane, but in the afternoon my A/C struggles to dump heat into 32-35C outside air to keep the house under 30C. And couldn't the land under the house be used more as an A/C heat sink to reduce compressor loads? It would probably be far cheaper to reduce residential usage in ways that do not affect comfort than to add extra generating capacity.

tsutsuji

Jul6-11, 07:14 AM

rowmag

Jul6-11, 08:08 AM

I'll look around the web for the data I've seen on energy wastage, but I'm sure I've read about 1/3 for Japan, in which case it doesn't matter too much who is or isn't wasting, the fact remains that a third--or whatever percentage it is--is being wasted, and at least a portion if not a majority of it can be conserved through various measures.

I think we (all residents of Japan, including industry) have been doing an impressive job of conserving already so far this summer:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/forecast/html/index-e.html

Peak usage has been running 15-20% lower than last year at the same time. Will be interesting to see how this goes at the peak of swelter season.

Susudake

Jul6-11, 10:49 AM

http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/ann/news/web/html/210704022.html The Tokyo police is sending the case to the public prosecutor's office, charging 3 artists of the Chim Pom group of an infringement of the Minor Offence Act with their arrangement of the "Myth of tomorrow" fresco by Taro Okamoto in Shibuya station in April. The accused are admitting the charges saying their purpose was to send a warning.

From an artistic standpoint alone I think that addition is very cool, and very well done--it's spooky too. Kudos to them for doing it, and for their response to being found out.

Susudake

Jul6-11, 10:55 AM

I think we (all residents of Japan, including industry) have been doing an impressive job of conserving already so far this summer:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/forecast/html/index-e.html

Peak usage has been running 15-20% lower than last year at the same time. Will be interesting to see how this goes at the peak of swelter season.

Yes, they're making an attempt.

Now, if people didn't have their keitais on (and their eyes glued to them) all day (携帯中毒) think how much more energy could be saved! At least all the recharging's going on off-peak ;-).

I only use mine to make and receive calls but then I guess I'm just a 変な外人.

joewein

Jul6-11, 09:03 PM

Yes, they're making an attempt.

Now, if people didn't have their keitais on (and their eyes glued to them) all day (携帯中毒) think how much more energy could be saved! At least all the recharging's going on off-peak ;-).

I only use mine to make and receive calls but then I guess I'm just a 変な外人.

You're joking, of course.

A mobile phone uses at most 1-2 kWh per year (plus conversion losses). The average residential power use in Japan is over 6 kWh per day. Mobile phone power use is a mere rounding error in how much power we use.

Susudake

Jul6-11, 11:17 PM

You're joking, of course.

A mobile phone uses at most 1-2 kWh per year (plus conversion losses). The average residential power use in Japan is over 6 kWh per day. Mobile phone power use is a mere rounding error in how much power we use.

Yes I was joking, I'll use the proper emoticon next time :-).

Just one of my little pet peeves here, exacerbated by numerous near-collisions in subway/train stations with people walking around glued to their keitai screens. I am tempted at times to just knock one of them over (I'm a lean but big guy).

Susudake

Jul7-11, 12:16 PM

This interview is well worth reading:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201107060307.html

Susudake

Jul8-11, 04:45 AM

Yes I was joking, I'll use the proper emoticon next time :-).

Just one of my little pet peeves here, exacerbated by numerous near-collisions in subway/train stations with people walking around glued to their keitai screens. I am tempted at times to just knock one of them over (I'm a lean but big guy).

Edit:

Re-reading this post I may sound like some angry aggressive you-know-what. My meaning specifically was that I find myself swerving to avoid people who are walking around glued to their mobile phones, paying no attention to where they're going, and at times I'm tempted to just keep walking straight and let them bounce off of me.

And I bring it up in the first place because to me this " 携帯中毒" (mobile-phone addiction) is an example of how much of the population--especially younger and urban, but not exclusively so--has become both mesmerized by technology and have cut themselves off from their surroundings, especially their natural surroundings.

This is being asleep at the wheel--because as a rich country with world-wide influence Japan is a partner with the US and the Eurozone "at the wheel"--and it has consequences world-wide. We're now seeing that in a nearly worst-case-scenario.

Japan's in many ways a wonderful place populated by wonderful people, and has a traditional culture that, after 20 years of pretty deep involvement with aspects of it, continues to amaze me to no end with its insights into, and expression of, the human condition; but there's a sometimes disturbing level of complacency and disconnection from messy ole' reality that is in need of change, or both its wonderful traditional culture, already dying out, and its natural beauty, among the finest in the world, are at risk.

If they and we can dodge this nuclear bullet then perhaps it will be a catalyst for a renaissance here……one can dream, at least.

jim hardy

Jul8-11, 09:22 AM

nikkkom

Jul11-11, 08:21 AM

""how much of the population--especially younger and urban, but not exclusively so--has become both mesmerized by technology and have cut themselves off from their surroundings, especially their natural surroundings. ""

Nice post S'dake.

The law of diminishing returns is as much a law of nature as F=MA, and i believe it underpins the Bible tale of Tower of Babel. Our "stairway to heaven" built on unlimited energy won't hold up because of human foibles. He's 'confused our tongues' by information overload, as you observe.

Thinkers have been warning about it for generations.
America's Henry Thoreau asked: "Why are we in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises?"
A hundred years later Simon and Garfunkel repeated Thoreau's warning with: "Slow down, you move to fast, gotta make the morning last.." (59th st bridge song)
From our own Eric Hoffer: “The superficiality of the American is the result of his hustling. It needs leisure to think things out; it needs leisure to mature. People in a hurry cannot think, cannot grow, nor can they decay. They are preserved in a state of perpetual puerility.”

It's not like Western culture doesn't allow you to slow down. If you want to, you can. Leave New York and settle in some rural area.

However, West by "moving too fast" managed to outrun all competing cultures.

To name a few: it proved in practice that it works better than socialist utopia of centralized state economy: it out-produced, and out-innovated them. In USSR, China and North Korea people were at times dying en masse from hunger (not in a time of war, mind you!) - a startling failure to perform a seemingly not so complex task of feeding the population, but the failure didn't stop there. Computers and IT in general, heavy machinery, chemistry - in all these areas socialists lost big time to the West.

Similarly devastating blow Western culture delivered to religious Muslim culture in the Middle East. In many Muslim countries people did plenty of "slow down, you move too fast, gotta make the morning last". Prayers five times a day. Study and preservation of rigid religious practices. What's not to like?

Well, they discovered that while they were taking a nap, West used this time to create more agile and more efficient society. Whenever a West society and a Middle East society clash (most notably in Israeli-Arab conflict), the gap in capabilities of these different cultures to respond to crisis looks more like chasm.

OTOH, countries which adopt Western ways of doing things generally succeed. Germany, Japan, South Korea. Now even China and Vietnam drift into the direction of becoming more West-like, and they immediately started looking better, stronger, more prosperous.

zapperzero

Jul11-11, 01:24 PM

OTOH, countries which adopt Western ways of doing things generally succeed. Germany, Japan, South Korea. Now even China and Vietnam drift into the direction of becoming more West-like, and they immediately started looking better, stronger, more prosperous.

Succeed at what? I suppose you mean, at American-style democracy.

Germany hardly changed anything in its political/social lookout. It's still a left-leaning country with a somewhat restricted democracy and relatively powerful regional governments, as it was 90 years ago.

Japan is bust, a sad victim of its own "success". China will look the same in 30 years only worse - an aging and demoralized population, vast assets (dead money) but an underperforming internal economy, political instability, country littered with engineering megaprojects that ultimately went nowhere but cost an arm and a leg to maintain.

Vietnam is becoming Westernized? Tell me another one.

Oh, wait, you did. You said South Korea is a westernized country and they owe their succes to that. I lol'd. In real life. The first semi-free elections they had? 1988. First time a civilian became president? 1993. Kim Dae-Jung (ironically enough, the most pro-democratic president the country ever had) was almost killed by the CIA once for his views. The current president was groomed for power and pushed in the position of CEO of the Hyundai chaebol by Park Chung-Hee, former officer of the Japanese Manchukuo army, Communist turned CIA stooge and dictator of Korea until 1979. How's that for Westernization?

gnasch

Jul11-11, 02:43 PM

Quite interesting link on bbc:

the LWR may be nuklear VHS instead of betamax...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14060913

best, gnasch

zapperzero

Jul11-11, 04:30 PM

Quite interesting link on bbc:

the LWR may be nuklear VHS instead of betamax...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14060913

best, gnasch

It may well be, but these aren't VCRs we're talking about. They're so big and scary, that the natural tendency is to choose the evil you know and that's water-cooled, water-moderated reactors. I, for one, would love to see sodium cooled reactors go the way of betamax. Ditto for any design that uses carbon in the core.

Sorai

Jul11-11, 07:02 PM

nikkkom

Jul12-11, 12:27 AM

Succeed at what? I suppose you mean, at American-style democracy.

Succeeded in science. In medicine. In technology. In space exploration. In ability to respond to crises. In ability to relatively quickly detect and correct mistakes in political decisions.

Germany hardly changed anything in its political/social lookout. It's still a left-leaning country with a somewhat restricted democracy and relatively powerful regional governments, as it was 90 years ago.

Nothing changed since 1930s in Germany... are you sure about that?

Japan is bust, a sad victim of its own "success". China will look the same in 30 years only worse - an aging and demoralized population, vast assets (dead money) but an underperforming internal economy,

As opposed to vast success under Mao? If you measure success in millions of dead from hunger, then yes.

political instability,

Why would you want to maximize political stability? Hitler, Franco, North Korea were/are very politically stable: no real elections, no meaningful methods to effect change (a.k.a. "instability").

Oh, wait, you did. You said South Korea is a westernized country and they owe their succes to that. I lol'd. In real life. The first semi-free elections they had? 1988. First time a civilian became president? 1993. Kim Dae-Jung (ironically enough, the most pro-democratic president the country ever had) was almost killed by the CIA once for his views.

Your point is?

The current president was groomed for power and pushed in the position of CEO of the Hyundai chaebol by Park Chung-Hee, former officer of the Japanese Manchukuo army, Communist turned CIA stooge and dictator of Korea until 1979. How's that for Westernization?

How is this relevant to the fact that current president was elected in a free and fair (i.e. Western style) elections?

You seem to be a typical Western leftie.

Typical Western leftie lived all his/her life in the West. Therefore he/she doesn't notice how many things work well in the West society. Just like you don't realize how precious is the ability to breathe air - until you are deprived of such ability (say, if you are drowning). So, a lot of things in the West work very well, but it is "natural" and he/she doesn't notice it.

However, West is not ideal and there are numerous things which can be improved, such as: financial mafia, businesses which tries to cut corners on safety and pollution, dishonest politicians who push policies beneficial for them and their friends but harmful for the country, etc, etc, etc.

Which makes you to come to conclusion that West is a horrible society.

I, on the other hand, had a "privilege" to live not only in the Western society, but also to live in "socialist paradise" of Ukraine (former part of USSR) before that. I know that supermarkets full of goods, mobile phones, computer in every house, freedom to say "our president is a f*cking idiot, let's elect someone less moronic" are not naturally happening things!

I think my perspective is much wider than one of people who only lived in a Western country (and no, tourist visits to non-Western countries don't count).

My opinion is that Western society is better than any other society currently existing, or existed in the past, on this planet. Note: "better" is not the same as "good" or "the best thing possible". The history of mankind is far from over. We will most likely devise an even more efficient societal constructs.

nikkkom

Jul12-11, 12:32 AM

At what point in history Germany stopped being part of the West?

*Scratch, that, I forgot about East Germany.

Hitler's reign was a period when Germany strayed away from the Western-style democracy. I consider it a requirement for being a Western country to have an *elected* government, freedom of press and freedom to form political parties. This makes country more capable to effect a change in politics when current government is making mistakes.

Sorai

Jul12-11, 12:59 AM

Hitler's reign was a period when Germany strayed away from the Western-style democracy. I consider it a requirement for being a Western country to have an *elected* government, freedom of press and freedom to form political parties. This makes country more capable to effect a change in politics when current government is making mistakes.

Fascism was a completely western phenomenon though. Unless you understand Western as it was understood during the cold war, which would be a bit narrow (but probably normal from an American point of view).

zapperzero

Jul12-11, 03:13 AM

Fascism was a completely western phenomenon though. Unless you understand Western as it was understood during the cold war, which would be a bit narrow (but probably normal from an American point of view).

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.

This is China. This is Japan. This is South Korea. This is Germany. This, increasingly, is the US of A. This is Mussolini speaking.

NUCENG

Jul12-11, 04:28 AM

Succeeded in science. In medicine. In technology. In space exploration. In ability to respond to crises. In ability to relatively quickly detect and correct mistakes in political decisions.

Nothing changed since 1930s in Germany... are you sure about that?

As opposed to vast success under Mao? If you measure success in millions of dead from hunger, then yes.

Why would you want to maximize political stability? Hitler, Franco, North Korea were/are very politically stable: no real elections, no meaningful methods to effect change (a.k.a. "instability").

Your point is?

How is this relevant to the fact that current president was elected in a free and fair (i.e. Western style) elections?

You seem to be a typical Western leftie.

Typical Western leftie lived all his/her life in the West. Therefore he/she doesn't notice how many things work well in the West society. Just like you don't realize how precious is the ability to breathe air - until you are deprived of such ability (say, if you are drowning). So, a lot of things in the West work very well, but it is "natural" and he/she doesn't notice it.

However, West is not ideal and there are numerous things which can be improved, such as: financial mafia, businesses which tries to cut corners on safety and pollution, dishonest politicians who push policies beneficial for them and their friends but harmful for the country, etc, etc, etc.

Which makes you to come to conclusion that West is a horrible society.

I, on the other hand, had a "privilege" to live not only in the Western society, but also to live in "socialist paradise" of Ukraine (former part of USSR) before that. I know that supermarkets full of goods, mobile phones, computer in every house, freedom to say "our president is a f*cking idiot, let's elect someone less moronic" are not naturally happening things!

I think my perspective is much wider than one of people who only lived in a Western country (and no, tourist visits to non-Western countries don't count).

My opinion is that Western society is better than any other society currently existing, or existed in the past, on this planet. Note: "better" is not the same as "good" or "the best thing possible". The history of mankind is far from over. We will most likely devise an even more efficient societal constructs.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

daveb

Jul13-11, 09:46 AM

This came out today from the NRC. It shows the NRC is taking seriously the possibility of similar circumstances happening in the USA.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/11-127.pdf

jim hardy

Jul14-11, 07:04 AM

""Hitler's reign was a period when Germany strayed away from the Western-style democracy. ""

One ought to read Albert Speer's memoir.
Hitler's intent was to create for his people a pastoral utopia supported by slave labor where the Aryans lived a life of liesure.
Now THAT's redistributing wealth (= liesure?).

""It's not like Western culture doesn't allow you to slow down. If you want to, you can. Leave New York and settle in some rural area.""
I did that, retired from South Florida to a rural community (pop 63) in the middle of nowhere . Google Earth "williford arkansas" and you'll see mostly trees. If you've ever noticed that Twilight Zone episode "Next Stop Willoughby" , you have an inkling.
But like the Ant one must be mildly frugal in the busy years and set aside for it. Instead we are barraged by advertising industy's 'instant gratification' culture to be grasshoppers.
I think that's the biggest single thing wrong with our culture - we are Madison-Avenued into a frenzy.

""However, West by "moving too fast" managed to outrun all competing cultures.""
Indeed. A measure of 'Hustle' is a good thing and it seems youth seems biologically programmed for it.
Like all good things is too much of it toxic for a culture ?
"A Question of Balance" - Moody Blues
"A Time to Every purpose..." Ecclesiastes

nikkkom

Jul14-11, 07:32 AM

""Hitler's reign was a period when Germany strayed away from the Western-style democracy. ""

One ought to read Albert Speer's memoir.
Hitler's intent was to create for his people a pastoral utopia supported by slave labor where the Aryans lived a life of liesure.
Now THAT's redistributing wealth (= liesure?).

To be honest, for me it doesn't matter what particular kind of insanity Hitler wanted to achieve. This planet does not suffer from insufficient supply of people with, eh, let's call them "ideas" how to build the "ideal society", and most of said ideas are unworkable, naive, horrifying or some combination of these attributes.

For me what matters is that Hitler quickly removed any possibility of meaningful political discussion in the German society, banned all parties except his own, and didn't allow elections. Which made it impossible for Germany to swerve away from its disastrous path.

Modern Western society's mechanisms to prevent this is freedom of speech, freedom to form parties, free and regular elections, and term limits.

If someone disagrees with me, it merely means he uses a different definition of "Modern Western society".

tsutsuji

Jul15-11, 06:44 AM

NRC Task Force Report is now available

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf

Thank you for the link. I thought it was not necessary to read the "dedication" at the top of the report because I was not expecting it to contain much information, but it turns out I was wrong. The dedication is very interesting.

The outcome—no fatalities

"Dedication", page iii http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf

This is a shocking statement. As I earlier wrote in this thread, based on http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Sp201106100047.html and other articles, 10 elderly people died in hospitals inside the evacuation zone while nearly everybody else in the towns had already evacuated. There is more in the following Yomiuri article :

Nearly 80 elderly people who were evacuated from nursing homes near the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant died within three months of the accidents at the plant that forced them to move, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.

The 77 deaths are more than triple the 25 recorded at the nursing homes during the corresponding period last year.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110702002582.htm

swl

Jul15-11, 07:35 AM

Re: NRC report dedication

This is a shocking statement. As I earlier wrote in this thread, based on http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Sp201106100047.html and other articles, 10 elderly people died in hospitals inside the evacuation zone while nearly everybody else in the towns had already evacuated. There is more in the following Yomiuri article :

It is sad, but not surprising to see the NRC fall into lock-step with the obfuscators from the UK and Japan. I understand that the existence of the NRC is dependent on the promotion of nuclear power, and it is clear that they understand this too. It is an unfortunate conflict of interests. Alas

Danuta

Jul15-11, 07:55 AM

Not to forget all the cases of suicide. Here is the latest, particularly poignant one.

"MINAMISOMA, Fukushima -- A 93-year-old woman, dejected over the ongoing nuclear crisis, was found hanged at her home in Minamisoma, Fukushima Prefecture, in late June, leaving behind suicide notes that said in part, "I will evacuate to the grave. I am sorry.""

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110709p2a00m0na013000c.html

tsutsuji

Jul15-11, 12:38 PM

I am afraid Nobukatsu Osumi's widow will not be very happy to learn that the NRC's official number of fatalities is zero. She is struggling to have her husband's death from a heart attack on 14 May be recognized as a workplace accident.

Let alone the fact that as of the end of April :

Some are suffering from insomnia, dehydration and high blood pressure, and risk developing depression or heart trouble, Takeshi Tanigawa, chairman of the public health department at Ehime University's medical school, told Associated Press.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/japan-declares-fukushima-no-go-zone , my underlining

it is a known fact that Nobukatsu Osumi was not sent to a doctor or a hospital emergency department in a timely manner :

it was pointed out that there were deficiencies in the emergency care system for workers, as it took more than two hours for Osumi to reach hospital from the time that he complained of feeling ill.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110712p2a00m0na008000c.html

If there had been no nuclear accident, in normal time, it would have been possible to find a doctor or a hospital close to the nuclear plant at 7 in the morning on a 19th of May. Because the whole area in the 10 km range had been evacuated, there was no doctor or hospital there.

Not to forget all the cases of suicide.

Yes, or like the case reported here :

Farmer's suicide note shows Japan's disaster impact (...) "Wish there was no nuclear power plant. My endurance has come to an end,"
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-14/world/japan.farmer.disaster_1_fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-nuclear-crisis-suicide-note?_s=PM:WORLD

Although it is not exactly the same thing, I am curious to know how the birthrate is going to evolve in Fukushima prefecture. Just after the Chernobyl accident:

A clear increase by more than 50% in the number of induced abortions was observed in the canton of Ticino in Switzerland in June 1986, but not for other months (5).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240640/pdf/ehp0109-000179.pdf

Danuta

Jul15-11, 01:15 PM

Not to forget this farmer either, whom I mentioned a while ago on another thread that was locked where the now ubiquitous "radiation has not killed anyone" line was used.

A 64 year-old cabbage grower hanged himself on Mar. 24 morning in his own premises, Sukagawa, Fukushima prefecture.

Due to the accident in Fukushima nuclear plant, the government imposed restrictions on intake of vegetables grown in Fukushima the day before.
The grower was disheartened by the harm caused by the quake, but was full of drive to start delivery of his cabbages. His family speak in a mortified tone, “The plant killed him.”

http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/03/30/a-vegetable-grower-in-fukushima-commits-suicide-after-restriction-on-vegetables-i-cant-take-it-anymore/

tsutsuji

Jul15-11, 10:56 PM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110714/0720_3_118nin.html Tepco is unable to check for radiation exposure 118 workers who worked in April, and 14 workers who worked in March at Fukushima Daiichi, because their whereabouts are unknown.

I guess most of them are safe and sound, but it is impossible to verify in a scientific manner if nobody is able to check their health.

Dmytry

Jul16-11, 02:29 AM

Sorai

Jul16-11, 10:02 AM

NRC still did not comply with FOIA request by AP, right?

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-info.html

robinson

Jul16-11, 05:29 PM

TEPCO denies nuke crisis compensation to kindergartens, nursing homes and clinics

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has refused to pay provisional compensation to kindergartens, nursing homes and health clinics affected by the ongoing crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, according to a document obtained by the Mainichi.

TEPCO, operator of the Fukushima plant, said it saw no need to pay provisional compensation to the facilities as they do not fall into the category of "small- and medium-sized companies" eligible for payments.

"Legally, school corporations, social welfare corporations and medical corporations do not fall under the category of small- and medium-sized enterprises," the utility explained. The company said it was not clear whether it would pay them the damages in the future, sparking a furious backlash for its infringement of the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damages which obliges the company to pay compensation to all victims.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110716p2a00m0na016000c.html

Morbius

Jul16-11, 07:48 PM

NRC still did not comply with FOIA request by AP, right? And ZAMG stopped publishing source term estimates after first publication.

It is a fact that there is a massive coverup going on.

Given the secrecy already in place at nuclear power plants, given NRC's willingness to break the law (ignoring FOIA request), and given their willingness to officially deny and ignore even well known - nothing is guaranteed about the official data. The zero death toll is a lie so colossal and so stupid its mind-boggling.

Dmytry,

I think it is outlandish and unfair to say that the NRC is breaking the law. It appears to me that they are
doing quite well in honoring FOIA requests.

The reason for unfair and invalid claims of cover-up are mostly due to ignorance as to what is covered by FOIA.
As part of my job, I'm certified as a "Derivative Classifier"; a person who applies DOE guidance in deciding what is and is not
classified. Part of that function is also to rule on FOIA requests. FOIA is not an automatic release of the information
that the requester wants. There are a number of exclusions to FOIA.

When I receive a FOIA request to review, and the requested information is classified, then I turn down the FOIA request and
cite the fact that the information is classified and therefore ineligible to be released under FOIA.

Often a statute requires that information not be released to the public. Again that is one of the exceptions written into the
FOIA Act that Congress passed. If FOIA conflicts with another statute that Congress passes telling the agency not to release
information, then by the provisions of FOIA itself - FOIA loses to the other statute.

Unless you know the FOIA law and its exceptions, and have good evidence to back-up claims of law-breaking;
it would be best to keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

Greg

NUCENG

Jul17-11, 03:38 AM

NRC still did not comply with FOIA request by AP, right? And ZAMG stopped publishing source term estimates after first publication.

It is a fact that there is a massive coverup going on.

Furthermore it is a fact that deaths attributable to accident (e.g. hospital evacuation fatalities) are being ignored in the plain sight.
There may well be dozens dead workers (among sub-sub-contractors) and we would not know (due to lack of mechanism by which we'd know). Even ignoring the radiation hazards, given the conditions, and given the number of workers, some workers ought to have died from heart failure or heat stroke - we did not hear of those deaths - meaning deaths are being covered up. Given the secrecy already in place at nuclear power plants, given NRC's willingness to break the law (ignoring FOIA request), and given their willingness to officially deny and ignore even well known - nothing is guaranteed about the official data. The zero death toll is a lie so colossal and so stupid its mind-boggling.

FOIA with comments from President Clinton recognizing that some requests will exceed the response time requirements:

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

NRCs FOIA compliance and guidelines

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html

Japan FOIA status (AP requests are FOIA/PA 2011-118, 119, and 120. Released over 3000 pp. so far.))

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-info.html

2010 report on FOIA processing by NRC (Exemptions for release are summarized on page 4):

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/annual-reports/annual-foia-report-fy2010.pdf

The Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS ) is described and accessed at this link free of charge:

http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Explore and see what is available even without a request under FOIA.

One last question, Dmytry, Why do you suppose NRC non-compliance with FOIA hasn't even been a big story in the AP? Are they part of the coverup?

Morbius, welcome to the Dmytry doghouse!

Caniche

Jul17-11, 01:46 PM

It is a fact that there is a massive coverup going on.

Chernobyl was accompanied by daily updates on UK national media. Nightly graphics on national TV tracking the radioactive fallout and likely hotspots across Scandinavia ,Europe ,USSR ,Far East . After Fukushima no such coverage , two initial reports of increased radiation attributable to the present catastrophe ,then 0 . Barely half a dozen national news items in six months.
The Uk govt. did act swiftly to remove the restrictions on the sale of radioactive sheep ,suddenly safe after 30 years within one month of Fukushima. 300 + farms magically all decontaminated simultaneously at a very opportune moment.
They even managed to pass an act of parliament that suspends the usual regulations governing development for the proposed expansion of UK Npp's. Some things seem to be above the usual law

Gary7

Jul17-11, 05:41 PM

Chernobyl was accompanied by daily updates on UK national media. Nightly graphics on national TV tracking the radioactive fallout and likely hotspots across Scandinavia ,Europe ,USSR ,Far East . After Fukushima no such coverage , two initial reports of increased radiation attributable to the present catastrophe ,then 0 . Barely half a dozen national news items in six months.

I have to say that it is a complete myth that there is media silence on this. Here in Japan, Fukushima continues to be top news on all stations, in all newspapers, and of course it is a consistently hot topic on the internet. There is so much testing going on in public and in private (with results being posted in various places online) that we are awash in data. We have detailed reports of radiation around the plants which are updated numerous times a day, and every prefecture is providing daily reports on atmospheric radiation. In addition, for those who read Japanese we have Twitter reports from workers on the site. When workers fall ill, we know within a few hours. We have access to so much information that we are able to tell you how many becquerels are in flounders caught off the coast of Fukushima and Iwaki.

The amount of information and the level of detail surrounding the Fukushima disaster is incomparable to Chernobyl. I had a friend in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident, and it was not unusual for the phone to get mysteriously cut off if one brought up the Chernobyl meltdown. Having said all of that, there are tons of things that remain to be known, and surely Tepco is not telling us all they know of the situation. But when I think back on the Chernobyl disaster, and the very real blackout on information coming from the Soviet Union, it blows my mind when people claim that we know nothing about what's going on in Fukushima.

Caniche

Jul17-11, 06:06 PM

I have to say that it is a complete myth that there is media silence on this. Here in Japan, Fukushima continues to be top news on all stations, in all newspapers, and of course it is a consistently hot topic on the internet. There is so much testing going on in public and in private (with results being posted in various places online) that we are awash in data. We have detailed reports of radiation around the plants which are updated numerous times a day, and every prefecture is providing daily reports on atmospheric radiation. In addition, for those who read Japanese we have Twitter reports from workers on the site. When workers fall ill, we know within a few hours. We have access to so much information that we are able to tell you how many becquerels are in flounders caught off the coast of Fukushima and Iwaki.

The amount of information and the level of detail surrounding the Fukushima disaster is incomparable to Chernobyl. I had a friend in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident, and it was not unusual for the phone to get mysteriously cut off if one brought up the Chernobyl meltdown. Having said all of that, there are tons of things that remain to be known, and surely Tepco is not telling us all they know of the situation. But when I think back on the Chernobyl disaster, and the very real blackout on information coming from the Soviet Union, it blows my mind when people claim that we know nothing about what's going on in Fukushima.

Most reassuring and I guess part of the reason why your premier has declared his desire for a nuclear free Japan.
But if you scrutinize my original post you will note that I was alluding to the blanket ban on media coverage in the UK, where strangely enough we are about to have imposed the biggest NPP construction programme since the 1950's.
I'm not for one moment claiming the daily Chernobyl fallout maps were produced by the Soviet authorities but they do tend to be more informative than the non existent information presentation concerning Fukushima radiation here in Europe

Gary7

Jul17-11, 06:58 PM

I see. Actually I did not notice that your comment was alluding to the blanket ban on media coverage in the UK. In fact, I was not aware of such a ban. Very informative, thank you.

Astronuc

Jul18-11, 07:23 AM

gmax137

Jul18-11, 07:36 AM

Really, there is a huge difference between 'blanket ban on media' and 'editors decide other stories will sell more advertising,' don't you think? Or are you saying someone has imposed this 'ban?'

NUCENG

Jul18-11, 07:52 AM

A review of the BBC, Guardian and Indpendent show that they still cover Fukushima and its consequences. However, other news stories, such as the News Corp scandal, EU debt worries, Paksitan/Afghanistan seem to occupy the front pages.

That is right. The old saw about the media is true. "If it bleeds, it leads." But if you are looking for a coverup on a news event you need to look further than the media. I have over two pages of links to websites on the Fukushima accident. These include news companies, blogs, government agencies, UN groups and even TEPCO. For a coverup, they are doing a terrible job.

In today's instant information age, information delayed, is considered coverup. It is actually possible that nobody yet knows the answers to some of the nagging questions. But if your agenda is to spread fear and hysteria, then claiming coverup is always the first tactic. Then it is possible to make any wild claim or speculation about the event without regard to information that is available - after all "they" are all lying as part of the coverup!

tsutsuji

Jul19-11, 03:35 AM

Some new figures to take into account in the Fukushima Daiichi death toll :

From June 1 to 10, 26 people died from heatstroke, compared with six in the same period last year, according to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110718n1.html

The above data cover Japan as a whole. If my understanding is correct, all thermal power plants have recovered from the earthquake and the power shortage is caused exclusively by nuclear power plants. The ratio of Fukushima Daiichi's 6 reactors to the 35 reactors shut down this summer is 6/35=17%. So perhaps Fukushima Daiichi is responsible for 17% of this year's additional heatstrokes.

gmax137

Jul19-11, 06:23 AM

... So perhaps Fukushima Daiichi is responsible for 17% of this year's additional heatstrokes.

Umm, I might say, "lack of power output from the Fukushima Daiichi units is responsible for 17% of this year's additional heatstrokes"

Caniche

Jul25-11, 06:01 PM

Really, there is a huge difference between 'blanket ban on media' and 'editors decide other stories will sell more advertising,' don't you think? Or are you saying someone has imposed this 'ban?'

It's wooly blanket ban.
Do a straw poll ,contact any of your chums in the UK and ask them how many Fukushima media reports they can recollect within the last three months.Problem ,what problem

gmax137

Jul26-11, 07:55 AM

Astronuc

Jul26-11, 08:39 AM

It's wooly blanket ban.
Do a straw poll ,contact any of your chums in the UK and ask them how many Fukushima media reports they can recollect within the last three months.Problem ,what problem Well there seem to be quite a lot of reports related to Fukushima in the BBC and Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=Fukushima&section=&date=date%2Flast30days (43 articles in which Fukushima is mentioned in the last 30 days), and 469 articles in 2011, mostly after March 11.

In the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14292167 - one can scroll down and find Nuclear Fears and various links to stories about Fukushima.

Reuters has hundreds of articles on Fukushima related to the NPP failures and contamination, as well as earthquake and tsunami.

robinson

Jul26-11, 08:06 PM

Revisiting the issue of hiding full resolution images, as well as pretending there are no images, from the original thread:
It's not. They have first rate equipment and much better images than any we have seen. Evidence provided upon request.

While it strays into the political, I imagine if this was a US event we wouldn't have any images at all. Except from a camera 30 miles away, that sometimes went dead at certain times.
Um, sry... what do you mean exactly?

Version 1: There's evidence of first rate equipment used because TEPCO provides high quality images etc. to organizations such as NISA, NRC, etc?

Version 2: You have evidence and will show it if we ask for it...? ^^;
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/03/4703/japan-reluctant-to-disclose-footage-of-power-plant-taken-by-u-s-drone/

For some reason I thought the drone footage and the issue of Japan refusing to share was discussed a long time back.

There are multiple stories like the one above.

I don't think anyone ever responded after I provided evidence to support what I said. I can still remember my frustration and disbelief at the quality and lack of any video of the disaster early on. As well as the seemingly absence of any measurements of the fallout, especially the actual materials being detected.

It's obvious once you know the level of technology that exists. At some point even the hardened nuclear engineer may have to admit it's nonsense that they keep pretending no good images are to be found.

Caniche

Jul27-11, 05:47 PM

Revisiting the issue of hiding full resolution images, as well as pretending there are no images, from the original thread:

I don't think anyone ever responded after I provided evidence to support what I said. I can still remember my frustration and disbelief at the quality and lack of any video of the disaster early on. As well as the seemingly absence of any measurements of the fallout, especially the actual materials being detected.

It's obvious once you know the level of technology that exists. At some point even the hardened nuclear engineer may have to admit it's nonsense that they keep pretending no good images are to be found.

It always did puzzle me ,how,when the biggest nuclear disaster the world has ever seen was unfolding ,no one managed to train a camera on unit 4 . Kaboom and not a scrap of photographic documentation. If I missed it all silly me:cry:If Tepco or IAEA missed it then strangely lax?

clancy688

Jul27-11, 06:01 PM

It always did puzzle me ,how,when the biggest nuclear disaster the world has ever seen was unfolding ,no one managed to train a camera on unit 4 .

IAEA was never on the scene during the first weeks. Only chance for news cameras to capture the scene would've been from hills or helicopters from outside the exclusion zone (20km). Webcam pictures from March 15th show very bad weather conditions, so getting an image from 20km away was probably impossible.

That leaves only TEPCO and the few soldiers who were there during the first few days. They were surrounded by melting down and exploding reactors. So they were in really deep **** and probably had better things to do than worrying about an around the clock video feed from all reactors.

Caniche

Jul27-11, 06:25 PM

IAEA was never on the scene during the first weeks. Only chance for news cameras to capture the scene would've been from hills or helicopters from outside the exclusion zone (20km). Webcam pictures from March 15th show very bad weather conditions, so getting an image from 20km away was probably impossible.

That leaves only TEPCO and the few soldiers who were there during the first few days. They were surrounded by melting down and exploding reactors. So they were in really deep **** and probably had better things to do than worrying about an around the clock video feed from all reactors.

Still puzzled. They were in deep doodoo's when No.1 went pop, but still managed to document No 3's spectacular demise.
As for inclement weather preventing any recording of invaluable data, well you have to wonder if a bit of fog ;rain or low cloud can screw up your monitoring systems ,is it safe to build these things in the first place?

clancy688

Jul27-11, 06:46 PM

Still puzzled. They were in deep doodoo's when No.1 went pop, but still managed to document No 3's spectacular demise.

Those were television cameras. News footage, nothing from TEPCO. Here's the webcam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FobcdNqlcVw

March 14th, no clouds, blue sky.
March 15th, at morning, clouds.

As for the monitoring systems, no systems were screwed up because there where no systems to be screwed up. Why should someone put a camera towards a nuclear reactor just in cause it blows up so that you'll have footage afterwards?
You don't equip lifeboats with cameras to film the sinking of the mother ship, and you don't monitor runways with cams so that you'll see what happened when a plane crashed.

jlduh

Jul28-11, 03:55 AM

Most reassuring and I guess part of the reason why your premier has declared his desire for a nuclear free Japan.
But if you scrutinize my original post you will note that I was alluding to the blanket ban on media coverage in the UK, where strangely enough we are about to have imposed the biggest NPP construction programme since the 1950's.
I'm not for one moment claiming the daily Chernobyl fallout maps were produced by the Soviet authorities but they do tend to be more informative than the non existent information presentation concerning Fukushima radiation here in Europe

I tend to second the part of this message concerning the low level of information in the news now in France about the Fukushima situation. After some peak when the news were hot and spectacular, very quickly here the infos have vanished. In the end, I would assume that an average french citizen with no special interest on this is thinking that the situation is probably under control as there is no more explosions nor real news. Well, we just hear that EPR built in France now by EDF/AREVA is again delayed due to various tech problems and that the final cost will be the double of the planned one... because also of Fukushima consequences on safety standards they say ;o)

Obviously, there is today much more information available in Japan but also on the net about this disaster than there has been in 1986, but of course the problem is to assess the quality of this info (the forum has seen in the last months that data were difficult to interpret...), an other problem being that nowadays the difficulty is to extract some valid conclusions from a gigantic bunch of infos about everything, which can be as tricky as having no info at all.

In 1986, there was silence and only official infos (most of them being false purposely), in 2011 there is a huge mediatic noise on almost everything in the medias. The question still being: can an average citizen hear and understand on the long run the right signal of information on a (complex) subject like this one? Not sure.

You can hide things by releasing nothing and shut up. Or you can hide as many important infos by submerging the public with a bunch of data and shouting.

jlduh

Jul28-11, 04:05 AM

At least maybe the Fukushima disaster is going to clarify what to do when there are damaged fuel rods in pools!

Chubu Electric Power Co. revealed Thursday it has been unable to remove a spent fuel rod that was damaged in an accident 17 years ago from its Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture.

While spent nuclear fuel is normally sent to the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture or elsewhere, the damaged rod remains inside the fuel pool of the plant's now decommissioned No. 1 reactor, in a special container, it said.

The company said it had asked domestic research organizations and foreign nuclear fuel firms to take it but to no avail, and is still pondering how to get the rod outside in the absence of clear government rules on how to dispose of damaged fuel that requires more delicate handling.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110728p2g00m0dm100000c.html

NUCENG

Jul28-11, 02:32 PM

Astronuc

Jul28-11, 05:57 PM

At least maybe the Fukushima disaster is going to clarify what to do when there are damaged fuel rods in pools!

Chubu Electric Power Co. revealed Thursday it has been unable to remove a spent fuel rod that was damaged in an accident 17 years ago from its Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture.

While spent nuclear fuel is normally sent to the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture or elsewhere, the damaged rod remains inside the fuel pool of the plant's now decommissioned No. 1 reactor, in a special container, it said.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110728p2g00m0dm100000c.html If that is the 1994 fuel failure, that wasn't an accident. Rather it was a typical fuel failure under normal operating conditions, unless they had a reactivity event or some unusual power or chemistry transient. It could have been a debris failure, or a PCI failure.

I suspect that they have no procedure for shipping damaged fuel. In the US, damaged fuel rods are placed in special containers, or they are left in the spent fuel pool until dispositioned. Otherwise, failed fuel can be placed in special containers and shipped to hotcell, which is occassionally done in the US. It is more routinely done in Europe.

Caniche

Jul28-11, 06:01 PM

I tend to second the part of this message concerning the low level of information in the news now in France about the Fukushima situation. After some peak when the news were hot and spectacular, very quickly here the infos have vanished. In the end, I would assume that an average french citizen with no special interest on this is thinking that the situation is probably under control as there is no more explosions nor real news. Well, we just hear that EPR built in France now by EDF/AREVA is again delayed due to various tech problems and that the final cost will be the double of the planned one... because also of Fukushima consequences on safety standards they say ;o)

Obviously, there is today much more information available in Japan but also on the net about this disaster than there has been in 1986, but of course the problem is to assess the quality of this info (the forum has seen in the last months that data were difficult to interpret...), an other problem being that nowadays the difficulty is to extract some valid conclusions from a gigantic bunch of infos about everything, which can be as tricky as having no info at all.

In 1986, there was silence and only official infos (most of them being false purposely), in 2011 there is a huge mediatic noise on almost everything in the medias. The question still being: can an average citizen hear and understand on the long run the right signal of information on a (complex) subject like this one? Not sure.

You can hide things by releasing nothing and shut up. Or you can hide as many important infos by submerging the public with a bunch of data and shouting.

Absolutely correct in my experience. Just a numbers game.
Witness the the mass information dumps and then calculate what percentage of the population will take the time to sift the data mountain and then make the effort to track some obscure web link to determine the significance of Becquerels or Rotogens etc, etc.
Clarity of public information does not seem to be high on the list of priorities

Susudake

Jul29-11, 11:53 AM

A couple of articles worth reading:

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/new-japan-law-cleanses-bad-nuclear-news/article13589.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-fukushima-hazardous-idUSTRE76P73920110726

Caniche

Jul29-11, 03:33 PM

Those were television cameras. News footage, nothing from TEPCO. Here's the webcam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FobcdNqlcVw

March 14th, no clouds, blue sky.
March 15th, at morning, clouds.

As for the monitoring systems, no systems were screwed up because there where no systems to be screwed up. Why should someone put a camera towards a nuclear reactor just in cause it blows up so that you'll have footage afterwards?
You don't equip lifeboats with cameras to film the sinking of the mother ship, and you don't monitor runways with cams so that you'll see what happened when a plane crashed.

Immaculate housekeeping :rofl::wink:

robinson

Jul29-11, 07:50 PM

tsutsuji

Jul30-11, 05:25 AM

http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/politics/news/CK2011072802000029.html?ref=rank Minister Goshi Hosono said the fast breeder reactors are being debated as part of the revision of the Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy. The Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy was adopted by the Cabinet in October 2005. It targeted a 30~40% share of electricity production by 2030 and commercial fast breeder reactors by 2050. Its revision was started last November but was interrupted after the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

Caniche

Jul30-11, 04:13 PM

Dmytry

Aug3-11, 07:47 AM

Hi Dmytry, hadn't tweaked you for a while. FYI NRC just posted another 1600 pages in response to the AP FOIAs.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-info.html
Hmm, was not tracking it very closely - was rather busy during the summer. There was no response from NRC for well over a month since deadline, was just looking at it today and whoopers they did actually start to release some communications beginning from june 30, better late than never. Very interesting. The communication seems to confirm the speculation regarding poor communication between TEPCO and NRC and absence of data from third party (non-TEPCO) experts on site during the first weeks.

Not that it is very useful considering that anything sensitive would be classified and thus not released, and it is very easy to justify classification of anything nuclear given the terrorist threat and such. Attachments are mostly absent as well.

What I am rather puzzled about is why the only source term estimates based on CTBT network and thus including what was blown into the ocean are early ones by ZAMG.
edit: There's some Japanese paper based on values in Japan:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/48/7/1129/_pdf
but given the prevailing wind direction during the release, the estimate based on the measurements taken in Japan only can only serve as a lower bound.

Dmytry

Aug3-11, 08:33 AM

A couple of articles worth reading:

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/new-japan-law-cleanses-bad-nuclear-news/article13589.html

It does seem kind of scary that politicians there could do this in the open without fearing for their popularity. Such things sound all reasonable - prevent disinformation and rumours - but it is clear that in practice they are not going to be targeting any posts promoting hormesis and claiming that it is all totally safe. Furthermore, the mere fact that they are pushing for such laws and creating task force to watch the blog posts can in itself provoke the panic.
During Chernobyl accident, the attempts by the government to suppress the information have only contributed to the public fears - how can Japan expect to do better job at information control - in today's world with the internet around - than a genuine police state could before the internet?

robinson

Aug3-11, 09:11 AM

Good points.

NUCENG

Aug3-11, 03:32 PM

Hmm, was not tracking it very closely - was rather busy during the summer. There was no response from NRC for well over a month since deadline, was just looking at it today and whoopers they did actually start to release some communications beginning from june 30, better late than never. Very interesting. The communication seems to confirm the speculation regarding poor communication between TEPCO and NRC and absence of data from third party (non-TEPCO) experts on site during the first weeks.

Not that it is very useful considering that anything sensitive would be classified and thus not released, and it is very easy to justify classification of anything nuclear given the terrorist threat and such. Attachments are mostly absent as well.

What I am rather puzzled about is why the only source term estimates based on CTBT network and thus including what was blown into the ocean are early ones by ZAMG.
edit: There's some Japanese paper based on values in Japan:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/48/7/1129/_pdf
but given the prevailing wind direction during the release, the estimate based on the measurements taken in Japan only can only serve as a lower bound.

About classification. In all the years I've worked in commercial nuclear power the only classified information has been related to physical and cyber security of the plants. With all of the photographs taken of Fukushima Daiichi, one of the basic security rules has appparently been dismissed as less important than trying to show what is going on.

Access to proprietary information is also limited, but I'm not sure anybody wants to copy the designs of Fukushima plants now. Some of AREVAs details in the water processing system have been withheld for this reason.

I think your concern about classified sensitive information is unfounded. I haven't seen any record of a spokeman refusing to answer a question due to Classified Information. We should be concentrate on the outright lies and deliberate withholding of information that revealed risks to the Japanese population. That was done by TEPCO and the Government of Japan.

The NRC files show the same poor resolution photography and information gaps we got from TEPCO, NISA, JAIF, and IAEA. So much for speculation that they were dumbing down the imagery released to the media.

There are snippets in the released files indicating that NRC thought the Japanese were denying the extent of the problem, and it might be interesting to compare dates to see whether they were ahead of the discussions here on PF.

Dmytry

Aug3-11, 04:31 PM

About classification. In all the years I've worked in commercial nuclear power the only classified information has been related to physical and cyber security of the plants. With all of the photographs taken of Fukushima Daiichi, one of the basic security rules has appparently been dismissed as less important than trying to show what is going on.

Access to proprietary information is also limited, but I'm not sure anybody wants to copy the designs of Fukushima plants now. Some of AREVAs details in the water processing system have been withheld for this reason.

I think your concern about classified sensitive information is unfounded. I haven't seen any record of a spokeman refusing to answer a question due to Classified Information. We should be concentrate on the outright lies and deliberate withholding of information that revealed risks to the Japanese population. That was done by TEPCO and the Government of Japan.

Well, so far the spokespeople seem to simply tell that they don't know and not tell of things that happened but they were not asked about.

The NRC files show the same poor resolution photography and information gaps we got from TEPCO, NISA, JAIF, and IAEA. So much for speculation that they were dumbing down the imagery released to the media.

There are snippets in the released files indicating that NRC thought the Japanese were denying the extent of the problem, and it might be interesting to compare dates to see whether they were ahead of the discussions here on PF.

Well, yes. It is a little bit hard to believe at first that NRC would not have any better data about failure at US-built nuclear power plant in US-friendly country than what bits and pieces were released to the public, but that appears to be very much the case. Lack of facts is in a way even worse than a coverup.

Then there's scarcity of source term estimates. We have ZAMG, CTBT-based, putting it at something like 50% Chernobyl for Cs-137 in first 4 days, and the Japanese estimate, based solely on data from monitoring stations in Japan, putting it at something like 15% of Chernobyl for Cs-137. No further CTBT based estimates. The Japanese official data has proved itself utterly ridiculous, with '55% core damage' which represented at once a gross error, and a grossly arrogant belief in own accuracy (to 5%), which would have been rather funny had it not been so tragic.

The official response of japanese government, well, the idea of kids wearing dosimeter badges to playgrounds to stay right below playground exposure limit that is equal to the limit for nuclear workers in EU (but with no ALARA), that's utterly insane. The food contamination monitoring - they do some sampling and there's stories about each sample that's radioactive but it would appear that there is still no comprehensive monitoring. It must be understood that unless government provides full compensation for the cost of products that are to be destroyed (as in germany where government paid half a million euros last year for radioactive wild boars), the product is going to get shipped all over the place and the origins obscured to evade detection and avoid financial loss. TEPCO are not the only people who deny and understate when $ are at risk.

tsutsuji

Aug6-11, 06:38 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_11.html Hiroshima Mayor says Fukushima "shattered the public's trust in nuclear energy".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_28.html As Tepco shuts down Kashiwazaki-Kariwa unit 1 (and unit 7 soon to follow) for regular inspection, NHK reminds that "earlier, Niigata Governor Hirohiko Izumida said he will not determine whether to allow restarting of the reactors unless investigation results into the nuclear accident at the Fukushima plant are presented".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_19.html Naoto Kan "proposed at an energy and environmental panel of Cabinet members at the end of last month that the current policy be completely reversed".

zapperzero

Aug9-11, 01:44 AM

NYT covers the Fukushima cover-up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

AP also
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/09/ap-impact-japan-ignored-own-radiation-forecasts/

alpi

Aug10-11, 10:36 AM

Why do the politicians in Japan not just inform the public that the accidents in Fukushima happened because there were no plans in Japan or elsewhere for dealing with a total station blackout lasting for more than a couple of hours?

It appears that the only thing you have to do to ensure that no release of radioactivity occurs in the unlikely event of a new tsunami of this magnitude is to ensure lasting RPV ventilation and that hoses and fire engine pumps not requiring electricity - but capable of pumping in about 10 litres of seawater per second during the first few critical days - are available in a safe place nearby nuclear reactors.

Astronuc

Aug11-11, 08:23 AM

Three Japanese ministers fired after Fukushima
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060333
10 August 2011

The BBC reports that the head of the Nuclear Industry and Safety Agency, Nobuaki Terasaka, the head of the natural resources and energy agency Tetsuhiro Hosono, and the vice-minister for economy, trade and industry, Kazuo Matsunaga, have been fired because of the problems at Fukushima Daiichi.

zapperzero

Aug11-11, 10:49 AM

Astronuc

Aug11-11, 03:18 PM

Japan plans cutting evacuation zone
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Japan_plans_cutting_evacuation_zone-0908114.html
09 August 2011
The Japanese government is planning to allow residents from certain areas near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant to return to their homes. Meanwhile, the plant owner has reported a quarterly loss of ¥571.7 billion ($7.4 billion).

. . . . :rolleyes:

If I was the regulator, I would have pulled TEPCO's license to operate nuclear plants.

Astronuc

Aug11-11, 03:26 PM

What, no Takaki? He's only been Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology since Sep. 2010. Hardly time to have an impact, one way or the other.

There is some expectation that Naoto Kan may resign.

zapperzero

Aug11-11, 03:46 PM

He's only been Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology since Sep. 2010. Hardly time to have an impact, one way or the other.

There is some expectation that Naoto Kan may resign.

Kan is expected to resign practically since he took office. Funny how he manages to keep postponing the 'inevitable'. As for Takaki... I think he's got a lot to answer for - the decision to start the school year on schedule, for one.

Astronuc

Aug11-11, 05:05 PM

Lessons learned from Fukushima in a presentation at MIT
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/nse/videos/11799-lessons-from-fukushima
(skip the first 6 minutes to get to the first of two presentations)

zapperzero

Aug12-11, 01:56 AM

Lessons learned from Fukushima in a presentation at MIT
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/nse/videos/11799-lessons-from-fukushima
(skip the first 6 minutes to get to the first of two presentations)

Some of the things the first speaker's saying are pretty odd.

20:53 "it's my understanding, they were putting new shrouds on, which is a standard maintenance procedure"

It is anything BUT standard. In fact, 1F-3 was the first ever NPP in which something like this was ever attempted. http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/maintenance/replace/shroud01.htm

EDIT: also, the last portion and the Q&A which focuses on risk and risk management is really annoying, the way the speakers go out of their way to say "oh there is no perfect safety, oh you have to look at safety as compared to other sources of energy, oh we have to be patient etc etc".

Also, it seems the epitome of hybris to talk about lessons learned, in March, when it's not even clear where the corium is and what the accident progression was even TODAY, five months later.

Astronuc

Aug12-11, 06:41 AM

Some of the things the first speaker's saying are pretty odd.

20:53 "it's my understanding, they were putting new shrouds on, which is a standard maintenance procedure"

It is anything BUT standard. In fact, 1F-3 was the first ever NPP in which something like this was ever attempted. http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/maintenance/replace/shroud01.htm

EDIT: also, the last portion and the Q&A which focuses on risk and risk management is really annoying, the way the speakers go out of their way to say "oh there is no perfect safety, oh you have to look at safety as compared to other sources of energy, oh we have to be patient etc etc".

Also, it seems the epitome of hybris to talk about lessons learned, in March, when it's not even clear where the corium is and what the accident progression was even TODAY, five months later. I agree. It is an example of someone who does not have direct experience with commercial power reactors. The first speaker was involved as a manager at TMI-2, then at OCRWM (DOE Spent Fuel Management system). In the US, most utilities opted for repairing cracked shrouds, as opposed to replacing them. That is the more typical approach. The Japanese tend to be a bit more conservative, and they elected to replace that shroud. Shroud replacement is pretty straight-forward, but it means that one has an irradiated shroud to bury somewhere, and when the reactor is shutdown and decommissioned, there will be a second shroud to bury somewhere.

Remember, the speakers are speaking to an audience who probably have some background or interest in nuclear energy.

tsutsuji

Aug14-11, 10:53 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110809p2g00m0dm009000c.html (English) "Kan calls for study on scrapping Monju fast-breeder reactor"

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110810004371.htm (English) "Kan irresponsibly toying with nuclear policy review"

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110814-OYT1T00481.htm?from=main1 At 10:40 AM on 13 August, a gas fired electric power plant made an automatic emergency shut-down, as a gas turbine blade is damaged, bringing Kansai Electric's remaining capacity to 29,420,000 KW, 6% lower than the estimated maximum demand of 31,380,000 KW.

zapperzero

Aug14-11, 04:09 PM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110809p2g00m0dm009000c.html (English) "Kan calls for study on scrapping Monju fast-breeder reactor"

Sudden attack of common sense, eh? Let's hope he pulls it off. I'm almost beginning to like this Kan fellow.

tsutsuji

Aug17-11, 04:33 PM

http://www.asahi.com/business/update/0817/TKY201108170379.html Tohoku Electric shuts down a 350,000 KW fire-powered electricity generating plant in Akita where a steam leak was found. This is adding to the temporary loss of 1,000,000 KW from dozens of dams in Niigata and Fukushima prefectures, that suffered the heavy rains in July.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_31.html Fukushima [Daiichi] plant chief apologizes over the accident

Niigata Gov. Hirohiko Izumida said that stress tests to check reactors' resistance to severe accidents would "merely be a psychological placebo."
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110817006114.htm

tsutsuji

Aug18-11, 04:38 AM

http://www.nikkei.com/life/news/article/g=96958A9C93819481E3E4E2E3828DE3E4E2EAE0E2E3E38297 EAE2E2E2;da=96958A88889DE2E0E3EAEAE7E6E2E0E3E3E0E0 E2E2EBE2E2E2E2E2E2 Naoto Kan was seen at Yaesu Book Centre buying 5 books including 2 nuclear power related books. One of them is "Emergency explanation! Fukushima Daiichi accident and radiations" by [NHK Senior Science Commentator] Noriyuki Mizuno. Buying former Fukushima governor Eisaku Sato's book "The Annihilation of a Governor", he let his lingering attachment to exit-from-nuclear show up.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20110818/t10014990311000.html Because of the 38°C heat wave in inland areas, Tepco's demand reached its highest peak for this summer at 49,500,000 KW or 90% of capacity at 2:15 PM, 18 August.

jlduh

Aug18-11, 07:05 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/movie/feature_nuclear.html

Power promotion scandal... Hummm I smile looking at this story about Chubu electric manipulating public opinion with the nuclear watchdog being also promoting what they were supposed to regulate, the two departments being under the same ministery...

Scandal? But isn't the real scandal the fact that they seem to just doscover this now??? Frankly, is it real news ot tales for children? Everybody seems ok TODAY to say this is unacceptable, that this is a closed system, and so on, but really that's a little bit easy to jump on this position NOW!

This story about bringing in 30% of the audience to a public consultation is ONE the hundreds strategies used to orientate opinion, and achieve strategic goals, that's all. You could call it manipulation, but politically correct novlang is talking about normal lobbying i guess...

Not only in Japan, everywhere. Here in France state is promoting nuclear energy so talking about independancy is just a joke. French state is promoting nuclear energy AND is supposed also to regulate it... (laugh).

There is always a time when everybody seems to wake up (or fakes to wake up?) and say: "Oh Oh Ohhhh this is not normal shame on them (Hummm... on us maybe?). This is comedy for the public.

I you were saying it before, you were just a stupid guy with no knowledge about it, just talking about ideology and politics. Say it now and nobody even listen to you because EVERYBODY adopted it as the "normal way of behaving" once the crisis happened. How many examples of this in nuclear business around the world (known or not yet revealed)? Hundreds, thousands?

Let's smile.

joewein

Aug18-11, 09:41 AM

In the 1980s the government in the German state of Bavaria was planning to build a nuclear reprocessing plant near its eastern part, a region with low incomes and high unemployment. The state is politically quite conservative. The assumption was that when people have few alternatives, they'll swallow anything (not unlike a lot of fishing villages around that coasts of Japan, I could add). However, things turned out very differently, with steadily growing resistance and civil disobedience.

When trees were felled in the forest for the construction site in December 1985, people from all over the country occupied the site. Thousands of locals joined them. When the police finally cleared a "hut village" built from felled logs, they sealed off the site at night during sub-zero temperatures. Friends of mine who were there told me how the police allowed anyone to leave if they spoke the local dialect, but isolated all the non-locals who were then arrested. When the police action was reported in the news, of course all the trouble makers were supposedly from outside the region, as if there was no local support at all. It was a slap in the face of all the locals opposing the project.

Likewise, later on, when a steel and razor wire security fence had been erected around the construction site, TV cameras always concentrated on the "anarchist corner", a spot where militants tried to cut the steel fence with hand saws while being showered by water cannons, meanwhile ignoring thousands of ordinary families of all ages from the region who came there every Sunday afternoon for "Sunday walkabouts", unofficial demonstrations. I saw some of these walkers targeted by water cannons from inside the fence hundreds of meters from any acts of violence, without any provocation, but such scenes never made it into the evening news.

I watched the events with my own eyes during the day and then in disbelief saw how it was twisted and distorted in the news in the evening. It was a real eye opener for many people in the region. It back-fired in a massive way. Civil disobedience escalated (helped along by the Chernobyl disaster that arrived in the middle of it). The situation ended up so out of control that the electricity companies who provided the funding got cold feet and withdrew their support for the project.

The Wackersdorf reprocessing plant was never built, but for those of us who experienced the struggle from personal experience as well as through the official media, the lessons have remained. Politicians and mass media need constant pressure from citizens to remain honest.

tsutsuji

Aug24-11, 03:32 AM

Moody's cuts Japan's debt rating on deficit concerns:
Japan's electricity production has been compromised by the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which was damaged by the the earthquake and tsunami. The government has cut the country's nuclear power output and is asking people to limit their use of electricity.

The fear is that continuing uncertainty about the supply of power will deter or delay investment by both the public and private sectors.

"These developments further hamper the economy's ability to achieve a growth rate strong enough to steadily reduce the budget deficit," Moody's said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14625969

tsutsuji

Aug25-11, 09:22 AM

A worldwide review of political consequences :
This article looks at the new situation in Japan for local residents and political elites along with the post-Fukushima changes in energy policies for Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. Japan and the world stand at a crossroads where decision makers and citizens must publicly evaluate the costs and benefits of pursuing nuclear power.
http://www.paristechreview.com/2011/08/25/nuclear-fukushima-accident-social-political-perspective/

NUCENG

Aug25-11, 01:19 PM

A worldwide review of political consequences :

Another excellent article tsutsuji.

Of course when I see terms such as "cycle of addiction" and "culture of dependency," I see implicit criticism of past decisions made based on economic considerations and freedom of commerce (aka Capitalism). In spite of that, I think it was a good article.

But the bottom line of this article is that there is also a social and political side to major economic decisions and that is a very clear truth. Germany, and Italy, have chosen to go away from Nuclear power. Japan is struggling with keeping their economy going under severe power shortages. But these countries must be responsive to their citizens. The choices they make are theirs to make and that should include honest considerations of the consequences of those decisions. If this results in a return to coal and oil even for an interim measure, the health, environmental, economic, social, and political consequences of that decision will be just as much their responsibility.

The engineers prayer: "Oh God, please make my blunders wise."

tsutsuji

Aug29-11, 04:38 AM

tsutsuji

Aug29-11, 09:53 AM

Of course when I see terms such as "cycle of addiction" and "culture of dependency,"

This reminds me of the page I read on the Onodekita blog, written by Dr. Ono, the owner of a clinic with the same name in Kumamoto, who says he lived in Tomioka, Fukushima prefecture for 5 years in his twenties from 1988 to 2003 where he enjoyed such things as the Yonomori cherry trees or the near annoying singing of the frogs, the flight of the fireflies in the night or the cold bath in the Ocean in summer, answering a reader comment on the difference between Soviet governed Chernobyl and the supposedly democratically chosen Japanese nuclear industry: "What is the difference with opium addiction?" : http://onodekita.sblo.jp/article/47494573.html

http://www.nikkei.com/news/headline/article/g=96958A9C93819481E0EBE2E6908DE0EBE2EAE0E2E3E39797 E3E2E2E2 Hokkaido electric renounces to start "pluthermal" (using MOX) at its Tomari Nuclear plant in spring 2012, as an investigation is launched over the E-mails asking employees to support pluthermal in a symposium in 2008 ( see also http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110827p2a00m0na011000c.html in English).

tsutsuji

Aug30-11, 08:31 AM

August 12 point of view, by Genichiro Takahashi, a novelist and professor at Meiji Gakuin University :

"A country that has no transparency is not a democracy."
If [the above] argument is valid, it follows then that Japan is not a democracy, which in turn means that Japan cannot and should not use nuclear energy.
(...)
When fruitful dialogue begins on "Atomos" between members of the atomic village and people in the anti-nuke camp, we may see the beginnings of a "slow democracy" in our country.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/opinion/AJ201108125202

http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/politics/news/CK2011072802000029.html?ref=rank Minister Goshi Hosono said the fast breeder reactors are being debated as part of the revision of the Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy. The Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy was adopted by the Cabinet in October 2005. It targeted a 30~40% share of electricity production by 2030 and commercial fast breeder reactors by 2050. Its revision was started last November but was interrupted after the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110830/0510_10kmkennai.html The Atomic Energy Commission of Japan will resume its work on the revision of the "Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy" in September. Discussing such issues as the fuel reprocessing plant in Aomori prefecture and the Monju fast breeder in Fukui prefecture, they plan to come up with a policy plan after one year. With the purpose of learning the lessons from the nuclear accident, they are studying the possibility of including contributions from specialists on issues like "safety" and "international problems".

zapperzero

Aug31-11, 01:23 AM

Watering down IAEA's wine:
(Reuters) - Countries with atomic power plants would be encouraged to host international safety review missions, under a draft U.N. action plan that may disappoint those who had hoped for strong measures to prevent a repeat of Japan's nuclear crisis.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-nuclear-safety-iaea-idUSTRE77T1MH20110830

tsutsuji

Aug31-11, 04:13 AM

http://www.asahi.com/international/jinmin/TKY201108280138.html The NISA announced comparisons between Fukushima (the power plant) and Hiroshima (the atomic bomb) while saying both events are quite different: Fukushima has released 168 times as much cesium, 2.5 times as much iodine, 2.4 times as much strontium as Hiroshima.

The isotope data for each event are provided on http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/08/20110826010/20110826010-2.pdf : top page= Fukushima units 1,2,3,total ; bottom page=Hiroshima.

I was wondering why the NISA had produced these figures:
The figures were released in response to a request from a Lower House special committee on promoting science and technology innovation.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108270177.html

"80% of Japan's reactors out of service":
After the Sendai No.2 reactor is shut down, 42 nuclear reactors among 54 in Japan will be out of service.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_11.html

Susudake

Sep1-11, 09:53 PM

This, to me, is telling:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109010197.html

tsutsuji

Sep6-11, 09:30 AM

2 September Prime Minister Noda press conference:
PRIME MINISTER NODA: I believe 14 nuclear power stations were planned to be newly constructed. However, the construction of new power stations is now, I believe, unrealistic. What will happen in my opinion is that the respective reactors will be decommissioned when they reach their life spans. The reactors which have reached their life spans will not be restored. They will be decommissioned. That is my basic stance. As to the immediate issues, as I also touched on in my opening remarks a moment ago, the reactors which are deemed operable based on rigorous safety checks, including the stress tests, will be restarted in the context of providing thorough explanations to the community members in order to obtain their understanding.
(...)

are you saying that you envision a society that can operate without relying on nuclear power? Any comments?

PRIME MINISTER NODA: Yes, that is what I mean - a society that doesn't rely on nuclear power. I believe that the future will see a movement away from nuclear energy. As you just stated, once nuclear power stations have lived out their periods of usefulness, we will decommission them, and shall not build any new stations.

http://www.isria.com/pages/6_September_2011_1.php

6 September: "The number of Japan's nuclear power plants would be "zero" in the future":
Industry minister Yoshio Hachiro said today that the number of Japan's nuclear power plants would be "zero" in the future, based on Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's policy of not building new nuclear power plants and decommissioning aged ones. "Considering the premier's remarks at press conferences, it would be zero," Hachiro told reporters in answer to the question whether the number of nuclear plants would reduce to none in the future. Hachiro added that it would be "difficult" to proceed with plans to build new nuclear plants whose construction has yet to begin, such as Chugoku Electric Power Co's Kaminoseki plant in Yamaguchi Prefecture."Public opinion is generally united in reducing (nuclear plants), instead of increasing them," he said.
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/no-of-japans-nuclear-plants-to-be-zero-in-future-hachiro/813170.html

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/news/20110906-OYT1T00392.htm?from=y10 Newly appointed minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Yoshio Hachiro spoke about the 14 new reactors that were planned to be built by 2030. It is "difficult" to build new facilities. The construction sites that were started at Oma and Higashidori are "frozen". What to think about this state of affairs "will be studied". The progress of Oma's construction work is 40%. Last May Democratic Party secretary general visited Oma and said "if we don't use already being built facilities while upgrading their safety, we can't cover Japan's electric power needs". The people who are expecting the reopening of construction work at Oma are "surprised" by Yoshio Hachiro's comment. On the other hand an official of an against-Oma-NPP citizen group said he wishes the decision to stop all 14 new reactors is taken soon.

tsutsuji

Sep8-11, 04:46 AM

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110908a4.html [Saga prefectoral assembly special committee on nuclear safety] "Panel chief quits over funds scandal"

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/08_23.html "[Niigata] Governor Hirohiko Izumida has said conducting stress tests will not lead to the prefecture approving of the resumption of such reactors. He has indicated that his prefecture will not make a decision on the matter until the results of investigations into the Fukushima accident are published."

tsutsuji

Sep9-11, 03:12 AM

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/news/110909/plc11090900340000-n1.htm From yesterday's press conference in Fukushima city. Journalist: Is the middle term storing of nuclear waste outside Fukushima prefecture also considered ? Noda:Yes this is also considered. Hosono:I have been in charge of this issue since the Kan administration. There is no change of the thought that we have no other choice than asking this to Fukushima prefecture. Journalist:Does the Prime Minister share that view? Noda:Yes.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110907004931.htm English version of 7 September Yomiuri Shimbun editorial : "Noda should ditch denuclearization policy" : "If [supplementary thermal power generation cost] is passed on to users, electricity charges will increase by 20 percent for ordinary households and nearly 40 percent for corporations"."As there are, for now, no solid prospects of securing substitute power sources, it is too early to totally deny the possibility that a new nuclear plant will be constructed".

NUCENG

Sep9-11, 01:23 PM

This, to me, is telling:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109010197.html

What does it tell you?

That a doctor was out of control?

That he was caught?

That his colleagues weren't paying attention?

That Japanese people in general want to irradiate all their children?

Dmytry

Sep10-11, 07:45 AM

Another excellent article tsutsuji.

Of course when I see terms such as "cycle of addiction" and "culture of dependency," I see implicit criticism of past decisions made based on economic considerations and freedom of commerce (aka Capitalism). In spite of that, I think it was a good article.

But the bottom line of this article is that there is also a social and political side to major economic decisions and that is a very clear truth. Germany, and Italy, have chosen to go away from Nuclear power. Japan is struggling with keeping their economy going under severe power shortages. But these countries must be responsive to their citizens. The choices they make are theirs to make and that should include honest considerations of the consequences of those decisions. If this results in a return to coal and oil even for an interim measure, the health, environmental, economic, social, and political consequences of that decision will be just as much their responsibility.

The engineers prayer: "Oh God, please make my blunders wise."

Well, in ideal world, the nuclear industry could have self-regulated out of their own self interest, seeing just how many billions the industry lost because some utility tried to save a little money on safety. They could've watched like hawks over each other so that no one would dare to cheat like this at everyone's expense.
But apparently that did not work. Tragedy of the commons - the 'no reactors exploded badly so far' is a common resource, and the responsibility is fragmented.

Afterwards - the failure at Fukushima is no proof that your local nuclear utility is as bad as TEPCO, of course. However it is a proof of failure in whatever process makes people believe that nuke plant in their backyard is safe.
It's not merely a failure of reactor but also a failure of the processes which we trust to declare anything safe.

tsutsuji

Sep10-11, 08:34 AM

They could've watched like hawks over each other so that no one would dare to cheat like this at everyone's expense.

There have been some lost opportunities. If the 29 March Reuters news is correct

The tsunami research presented by a Tokyo Electric team led by Toshiaki Sakai came on the first day of a three-day conference in July 2007 [2006 (1)] organized by the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering [in Miami].
(...)
Sakai's team determined the Fukushima plant was dead certain to be hit by a tsunami of one or two meters in a 50-year period. They put the risk of a wave of 6 meters or more at around 10 percent over the same time span.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72S2UA20110329
already quoted at http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3468442&postcount=288

alarm bells should have rung in 2006 in Miami, or later when the proceedings were published ( http://www.asmedl.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=ASMECP002006042460000069000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&ref=no ). (now available on Joseph S. Miller's blog http://www.jsmillerdesign.com/FukushimaPapers/Development%20of%20a%20Probalistic%20Tsunami%20Haz ard%20Analysis%20in%20Japan.pdf )

If a serious tsunami science scientist had been present at the November 24-26, 2010 Kashiwazaki international symposium on seismic safety, he should have asked Makoto Takao how his http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf page 14 slide can remain valid in the light of the 2006 Sakai presentation, and in the light of the 869 Jogan earthquake.

Dmytry

Sep10-11, 09:28 AM

tsutsuji : the reactor is on the coast that's been hit by tsunamis over 20 meters tall, the reason why the seawall was so low at Fukushima was not the [geophysical] unknowns, but rather the false belief that they knew more than they actually did. There was the opportunity from the day one - not to use the garbage in garbage out simulations to cut the costs a little bit. Speculating no risk in absence of good data and then waiting for the data to conclusively prove the risk is larger is not a way to go for safety.

robinson

Sep10-11, 10:23 AM

Dmytry

Sep10-11, 10:42 AM

If you look at the "seawall" (say with Google (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fukushima&hl=en&ll=37.423974,141.036129&spn=0.009611,0.016479&sll=38.90426,-77.04277&sspn=0.009418,0.016479&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=16)), it's obvious it could have been 40 meters high and the tsunami would have still flooded the site.

There was no tsunami barrier there really. To protect from that sort of event there has to be be a continuous wall. It's as if they didn't plan for a tsunami at all. Just big waves, which a tsunami is certainly not.
Well, yes.
The way I see it, they built a plant with no tsunami protection right next to a known tsunami region. That has nothing to do with insufficient knowledge about geophysics by itself and everything to do with combination of a belief that they knew quite exactly where tsunami origin region ends (which is bad) with not actually knowing where it ends (which is totally normal).
edit: to clarify, I mean it is not the inaccuracy of the model by itself that did lead to this disaster (all models were and are inaccurate), but the belief that model was so accurate and reliable that if it told you needed no tsunami protection right next to tsunami zone, you didn't need tsunami protection. This can be done with any model that is not perfect. Or simple negligence.

tsutsuji

Sep11-11, 05:06 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110911p2g00m0dm066000c.html "[Economy, trade and industry minister] Yoshio Hachiro resigned from his post Saturday after making remarks that angered and displeased people affected by the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant".

zapperzero

Sep11-11, 10:07 AM

mantrogo

Sep12-11, 05:54 AM

depressingly frequent - a cabinet minister resigning after a mere 9 days is actually only tied in fourth place for the fastest resignation post war. And let's face it, ex-PM Kan was the only PM in the last 6 to last more than a year. There was a good quip - if rueful - from the current PM Noda when he was the Finance Minister in June last year. He commented as he returned from the G20 meeting that he was concerned that the Japanese face most familiar to his global counterparts was the translator...

tsutsuji

Sep22-11, 05:26 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110920p2a00m0na011000c.html "Residents furious over 60-page application, 160-page manual for TEPCO compensation"

Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura tried to clarify Noda's remarks during a news conference Wednesday, saying that while Japan coped with a 2.7 percent supply shortfall during peak electricity demand this summer, a power shortfall of around 10 percent is projected for next summer if all reactors are shut down.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110922a3.html

Susudake

Sep22-11, 07:58 AM

Astronuc

Sep22-11, 10:37 AM

gmax137

Sep22-11, 05:17 PM

This might be as appropriate on the "scientific side of the fence" (it's not always so clear cut, stupid messy reality!) but I'll post it here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/21/what-tepco-and-the-media-are-hiding/

I've wondered myself about this quake vs. the Hanshin quake, but seeing it calculated at 350 times the Hanshin quake really makes that difference suspect.

I'd love to hear any reactions/explanations about the magnitude issue.

....
Well I'm no seismic expert, but he seems to be mixing up magnitude (which I thought was a property of the earthquake) and the local ground response at a given location. I just don't see how you can argue that "this 'quake couldn't have been magnitude 9, because the other quake (at magnitude 7.3) caused much more damage". Doesn't it depend on where the 'quake was and where the damage was? He seems to be sensitive to muddy thinking on the part of others, so I'm not sure I understand his seemingly muddy thoughts.

tsutsuji

Sep23-11, 03:56 AM

Fukushima Daiichi crisis: OECD & IAEA
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060625
Nuclear world confers
20 September 2011

Two international meetings in Europe in June have reinforced the desire of the nuclear industry to work together to respond to the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In a separate development, the US nuclear industry, which operates a quarter of the world’s reactors, has created a formal organisation to respond to Fukushima Daiichi.

Also the American Nuclear Society's Special Committee on the Japanese Fukushima Accident:

will provide a clear and concise explanation of the events surrounding the accident to the general public and U.S. leaders. These communications will include events such as station blackout, the effect on the reactors and on the spent fuel stored at the plant site and the likely health effects of the radioactive substances released to the environment. In addition, the committee will evaluate recommended actions that ANS could or should consider to better communicate with the public and elected officials during a nuclear event.
(...)
will present its draft report by the end of calendar year 2011 and the final report by the spring of 2012.

http://www.new.ans.org/about/committees/scjfa/

Prime minister Noda's address to the IAEA (translation of draft):

At a minimum, there is little doubt that we had overestimated our preparations for tsunami. It is clear that electrical power supplies for emergency use and pumps should not have been situated in locations that could be submerged by tsunami. Our preparations for a severe accident that would result in damage to the reactor core were insufficient. Making a vent took more time than expected, causing loss of precious time. While a full-scale process to discover the cause of the accident will continue for some time, we have identified ''faults'' as well as ''lessons learned'' from them.

(...)

Japan will also present practical strategies and plans around the summer of 2012 concerning the composition of energy sources over the medium and long terms.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/09/116392.html

clancy688

Sep23-11, 06:27 AM

I just don't see how you can argue that "this 'quake couldn't have been magnitude 9, because the other quake (at magnitude 7.3) caused much more damage".

But he has a point. I just checked wikipedia for some older big earthquakes. All of them are measured in the Mj JMA scale. The Tohoku quake is the first one to be measured in the Mw magnitude scale. And according to the german wikipedia, while the Tohoku quake has a 9,0 Mw magnitude, it "only" has a 8,4 Mj JMA magnitude.

Here's (http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/1103/25b/kaisetsu201103251730.pdf) a comparison of many big quakes and the Tohoku quake (look on page 7). Apparently, the Mw and Mj scales often produced the same numbers, but not for the Tohoku quake.

As far as I understand, the Mw scale measures released energy and the Mj scale destructive power. Wasn't it said that the Fukushima plant should withstand earthquakes up to 8,4? Does anyone know if that number represents the Mw or the Mj number?

westfield

Sep23-11, 08:26 PM

"IAEA adopts action plan for nuclear safety"

"The plan calls for sending IAEA inspectors to member countries to evaluate the safety of nuclear plants at their request. It also requires the signatories to quickly organize a response team after a nuclear accident."

Link (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_37.html)

As its reported in that article it's seems like a combination of what the IAEA already does and what would be the obvious thing to do in an emergency. Hardly worth a press release unless they just wanted to insult people's intelligence.

Susudake

Sep24-11, 10:08 PM

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109240257.html

I posted on the scientific thread asking for clarification on whether it's accurate to use the term "cold shutdown" in reference to FDI 1-3. Not much response but one person with an engineering background said it would be inaccurate since, as I pointed out, it's not fuel assemblies, but corium, inside (and outside) the reactors.

But now this term seems to be getting embedded in every story (see above). In other words, a meme getting repeated until it's taken for granted. The Asahi is ostensibly a bit more left/independent (independent of a 100+ year right-wing and often militaristic government means by definition being left-leaning) and yet it's still part of the Japanese MSM.

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

zapperzero

Sep25-11, 03:58 AM

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

Well, yes, it is. Meaningless feel-good phrase. Cold. Shutdown. No more danger.

alpi

Sep25-11, 06:38 AM

Well, yes, it is. Meaningless feel-good phrase. Cold. Shutdown. No more danger.

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

gmax137

Sep25-11, 07:18 AM

... Wasn't it said that the Fukushima plant should withstand earthquakes up to 8,4? Does anyone know if that number represents the Mw or the Mj number?

I don't know if 'it was said' but I think if were said, it would be meaningless. The 'magnitude' is a characteristic of the earthquake (at the location of the earthquake) -- it has nothing really to do specifically with the damage at any given location, simply because the severity at a given location depends on how close you are to the site of the earthquake. Seismic design for a nuclear plant is specified in terms of a ground response spectrum; this tells you how hard the shaking is at the reactor site. The response spectrum defines how a collection of oscillators of various natural frequencies would respond to the ground motion. It has the form of a curve of acceleration (units g or gal) vs. frequency (in hertz). If you want to compare the earthquake as it affected Fukushima to the plant design, you need to convert the measured ground motion at the plant to a response spectrum and then compare that to the specified spectrum. I have not seen such a comparison reported, if any of you have seen it please post a link.

clancy688

Sep25-11, 09:04 AM

If you want to compare the earthquake as it affected Fukushima to the plant design, you need to convert the measured ground motion at the plant to a response spectrum and then compare that to the specified spectrum. I have not seen such a comparison reported, if any of you have seen it please post a link.

What I meant was this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8379759/Japan-earthquake-Disaster-in-numbers.html):

8.2 The magnitude of earthquake the Fukushima nuclear plant was designed to withstand

This "8.2" number was often quoted in the media. But is it a number on the Mw scale or the Mj scale?

And there were reports (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110516e27.pdf)concerning ground peak acceleration. Look at page three, Units 2, 3 and 5 suffered accelerations above their designed tolerances. According to this (http://books.google.com/books?id=qEuWntnoZzYC&pg=PA123) report, Unit 1 was initially designed for peak ground accelerations of not more than 0.18 g - compare that to the numbers in the TEPCO pdf I posted.

gmax137

Sep25-11, 05:27 PM

Thanks for the link clancy688, I will take a look at it.

Caniche

Sep25-11, 06:21 PM

sp2

Sep25-11, 11:38 PM

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?

(And yes, of course it's propaganda to call it 'Cold Shutdown.'

'Cold Shutdown' applies to Nuclear Reactors. Like, *intact* Nuclear Reactors.
We don't have anything remotely resembling that here.

Calling it 'Cold Shutdown' is like opening the drawer of the hospital morgue to pull out a patient who's been dead for a week, taking his temperature, and saying, "Well, he's definitely *stable*."

<nonsense deleted>

Borek

Sep26-11, 03:05 AM

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?

You don't need boiling to see steam. Common misconception.

Luca Bevil

Sep26-11, 11:26 AM

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

Covered ? quite dificult to ascertain since the exact location of the corium is not known.
One can only say that temperature at the positions where termocouples are is less than 100 degrees Celsius. which is of course better than registering a higher temperature, especially if there is a decreasing trend, but is far from a normal cold shutdown condition.

tsutsuji

Sep28-11, 02:05 PM

How common is this in Japan? The new cabinet is just a week old, no?

Ryu Matsumoto resigned after one week in July:

Japan's Minister for Reconstruction Ryu Matsumoto has announced his resignation after just a week in the job.

He had been widely criticised for making insensitive remarks to governors of areas badly affected by March's deadly earthquake and tsunami.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14024206

Minoru Yanagida resigned over a gaffe in November 2010. He had been minister of Justice for less than 3 months:

Japan's justice minister resigns after gaffe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/japan-justice-minister-minoru-yanagida

sp2

Sep28-11, 05:30 PM

You don't need boiling to see steam. Common misconception.

Borek--

Please don't tell me you would look me in the eye and state that you honestly believe there's nothing boiling in there.

Please.

Borek

Sep29-11, 01:48 AM

I have no idea what is going on inside. But concluding something is boiling just because you see a steam is wrong.

NUCENG

Sep29-11, 02:43 AM

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

I am the engineer that pointed out that cold shutdown is a technical term with a legal definition that is not applicable to the Fukushima reactors.

Now I will also state that the term propoganda is equally suspect. As I said before, communication and translation from Japanese to English is one source of inaccuracy. Another is in the media interpretation of what they have been told. These can be innocent errors. However, your use of the word propoganda is deliberate and implies intentional miscommunication. Your previous posts clearly demonstrate your bias. So unless you are prepared to prove your assertions, I will simply categorize your posts as propoganda too.

Edit:

TEPCO does not yet consider the plants in cold shutdown. see:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/28/japan-nuclear-plant-idUSL3E7KS28V20110928

zapperzero

Sep29-11, 04:54 AM

Gentlemen and ladies of PF.

I would like to point out to all of you that this thread is right at the very edge of what is acceptable on physicsforums anyway. It's quite normal, therefore, that moderators lack experience and regulars become uncomfortable with the deluge of spin, propaganda, counterprop and plain all-out kookery.

But that's what this thread is for! Think of it as a bag where all the unruly kittens can be stuffed. Tolerate the odd outburst of noise and the occasional squirming...

Astronuc

Sep29-11, 08:27 AM

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?

(And yes, of course it's propaganda to call it 'Cold Shutdown.'

'Cold Shutdown' applies to Nuclear Reactors. Like, *intact* Nuclear Reactors.
We don't have anything remotely resembling that here.

Calling it 'Cold Shutdown' is like opening the drawer of the hospital morgue to pull out a patient who's been dead for a week, taking his temperature, and saying, "Well, he's definitely *stable*." Don't read more into the terminology than temperature at 1 atm.

NUCENG has already discussed the use of the term.

Cold shutdown
The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cooldown.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/cold-shutdown.html

Shutdown implies that reactor/core is subcritical.

zapperzero

Sep30-11, 05:32 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204010604576596321581004368.html
Japan Officials Failed to Hand Out Radiation Pills in Quake's Aftermath says the title.
So much fail.

tsutsuji

Sep30-11, 01:42 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576602763288145094.html "Japan Panel Says Nuclear Agency Manipulated Forums"

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110930p2a00m0na007000c.html criticality accident anniversary: Tokai Mayor "showed his anti-nuclear position."

tsutsuji

Oct4-11, 06:04 AM

joewein

Oct4-11, 09:30 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111004p2g00m0dm010000c.html "The head of Japan's largest labor organization said Tuesday that the 6.8 million-strong body will seek to eventually realize a society not dependent on nuclear power, marking a shift from its previous stance of promoting atomic energy."

...which reminded me of a quote in a Japan Times interview with freelance journalist Satoshi Kamata (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20111002x1.html) published on Oct 2:

What was your motivation in helping to organize the anti-nuclear demonstration in Tokyo on Sept. 19?

I planned the demonstration because right after the Fukushima crisis no citizens' groups seemed able to organize anti-nuclear rallies. In France or Germany, citizens' groups organized demonstrations numbering 200,000 or 300,000 people. In Japan it is difficult to hold such massive rallies.

Why is it difficult in Japan?

In Japan, labor unions have been the main organizers of massive demonstrations, but Rengo (the Japanese Trades Union Confederation) is not against nuclear power because it represents workers in the nuclear industry.

However, since May there have been many ordinary citizens, mainly young people, organizing anti-nuclear rallies that have typically attracted about 10,000 demonstrators.

So I thought that I should help to organize an even bigger demonstration, and I added my efforts to those of eight other co-organizers.

So if Rengo switches sides, it could be quite an interesting development, also considering the close links between Rengo and the currently ruling Democratic Party.

tsutsuji

Oct14-11, 02:53 PM

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20111015k0000m040029000c.html The ministry of education is publishing and distributing to schools new versions of reading books about radioactivity. Expressions such as "Nuclear plants are built in such a way that makes them safe from big earthquakes or tsunamis" that were written in the old versions have been removed.

clancy688

Oct14-11, 10:08 PM

Expressions such as "Nuclear plants are built in such a way that makes them safe from big earthquakes or tsunamis" that were written in the old versions have been removed.

That says a lot about their "newfound confidence" in safety measures. It probably would have been enough if they'd just slipped a "are supposed to be built in such a way" into the text, but I won't complain.

tsutsuji

Oct16-11, 08:27 AM

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111015002391.htm English article about nuclear science education in Japanese schools.

Astronuc

Oct16-11, 09:27 AM

Also from Yomiuri, NISA secretly calculated Fukushima meltdown risks / Agency considered worst-case scenario of 'China syndrome'
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111015002539.htm

The agency [NISA] was working on the calculations just as TEPCO was saying the nuclear fuel in three reactors at the plant was "slightly damaged."

The key statement is: "The calculations indicated that if cooling water could not be injected, . . . ."

So why didn't TEPCO come out and say that they believed some fuel may have melted. Well, they eventually did, but they didn't know, and they still don't know how much (they would be left simply speculating). And they (and we) won't know until the RPVs are opened and the cores are visually inspected.

From the hydrogen and activity release, it is clear there is a lot of damage to the fuel, but a lot of damage could have occurred well below the melting point of the fuel and cladding. The cladding and channels would have oxidized considerably at half the melting temperature of the Zircaloy-2 material. Once the cladding is breached, the inner Zr-liner would have rapidly oxidized at even lower temperature, and the fuel would have been exposed to the coolant, and it would have started to oxidize. Other than the volatiles, the severely oxidized fuel would have fallen into the coolant - but it would not have melted. Only if the core had gone completely dry (essentially adiabatic conditions) would the fuel have melted.

Since water is the source of hydrogen, there had to be water in or below the core, and that would reduce the likelihood of the core melting through the RPV. It remains to be seen if the cores in units 1, 2 and 3 ended up like TMI-2's damaged core.

zapperzero

Oct16-11, 05:13 PM

And they (and we) won't know until the RPVs are opened and the cores are visually inspected.

Five years minimum, according to TEPCO roadmap.

Why in the name of Stinky Pete they do not just stick borescopes in there is beyond me.

Knowing the shapes and locations the fuel's in would help prevent recriticality and optimize cooling, so it's not like they would be doing it just to satisfy our curiosity.

Astronuc

Oct16-11, 05:34 PM

Five years minimum, according to TEPCO roadmap.

Why in the name of Stinky Pete they do not just stick borescopes in there is beyond me.

Knowing the shapes and locations the fuel's in would help prevent recriticality and optimize cooling, so it's not like they would be doing it just to satisfy our curiosity. It's not so easy. They would have thread it though one of the feedwater lines, and then get it through the feedwater sparger, and arounound the hardware above the core. Above the core are the moisture separator and steam dryer. To go in through the top, they'd have to remove the RPV head, and before that the plug. They have no heavy lifting equipment in place to do that. They'd have to remove the steel from the upper containment first.

See the details here - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

NUCENG

Oct17-11, 02:15 AM

It's not so easy. They would have thread it though one of the feedwater lines, and then get it through the feedwater sparger, and arounound the hardware above the core. Above the core are the moisture separator and steam dryer. To go in through the top, they'd have to remove the RPV head, and before that the plug. They have no heavy lifting equipment in place to do that. They'd have to remove the steel from the upper containment first.

See the details here - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

IF the boroscope will fit through instrument lines, and the lines are intact, and the boroscope can survive the process conditions, and if water clarity permits, and if rad levels permit access to the penetration area by personnel to install the boroscope, there are routes to the drywell via the drywell and suppression chamber instrument lines, to the vessel outside the shroud through the vessel pressure and level instrument lines, and to the lower plenum inside the vessel through core differential pressure lines.

Navigate the IF minefield and get your camera is there and photograph the debris. Now what will you use that information for? What could you see that would change what they are doing now? They are still trying to ensure that the fuel, wherever it is, is covered and cooled to below 100 degC. Boiling keeps things stirred up and would probably be detrimental to getting useful pictures. How long was it before they inserted cameras at TMI? Is it worth the dose and risk to do this now, before completing site cleanup and building the containment "tent" structures?

I am curious, too. I "hope" they plan to look for the fuel before they start trying to remove it, but if it isn't at the top of their ppriority list right now, I can understand that, too.

zapperzero

Oct17-11, 06:54 AM

IF the boroscope will fit through instrument lines, and the lines are intact, and the boroscope can survive the process conditions, and if water clarity permits, and if rad levels permit access to the penetration area by personnel to install the boroscope, there are routes to the drywell via the drywell and suppression chamber instrument lines, to the vessel outside the shroud through the vessel pressure and level instrument lines, and to the lower plenum inside the vessel through core differential pressure lines.

Navigate the IF minefield and get your camera is there and photograph the debris. Now what will you use that information for? What could you see that would change what they are doing now? They are still trying to ensure that the fuel, wherever it is, is covered and cooled to below 100 degC. Boiling keeps things stirred up and would probably be detrimental to getting useful pictures. How long was it before they inserted cameras at TMI? Is it worth the dose and risk to do this now, before completing site cleanup and building the containment "tent" structures?

I am curious, too. I "hope" they plan to look for the fuel before they start trying to remove it, but if it isn't at the top of their ppriority list right now, I can understand that, too.

We keep having this conversation, which says a lot about my pig-headedness and your patience, both.

I think after the tents are up working inside the reactor buildings will be harder not easier for the reason that radioactive steam will still be wafting out even if all the water is below 100 degrees Celsius.

I do not know if it is worth the dose. Maybe it is. Depends on what one would find. I would at least try to put a borescope into the drywell, below the RPV bottom head.

I may see that I need to add more boron ASAP because there is fuel and it is in a nasty configuration.

I may see that the RPV is whole, or I may see that it isn't, which would probably affect the choice of cooling lines and help me minimize water use.

I may see other, unexpected things, such as severely cracked walls/floors, a big honking hole in the middle of the drywell floor into which the fuel is sinking and so on and so forth. Interesting stuff that may make me change my priorities radically.

I may see nothing, in which case I would retrieve the borescope, see what sort of dose it got and if it got hit by any neutrons and call it a day. Then you'd criticize me (rightly, because hindsight is always 100%!) for wasting time, money and exposing people to unnecessary risk.

Astronuc

Oct17-11, 11:04 AM

Assuming the core melted - from the top down - since the top would be first exposed if coolant was leaking from the bottom of the vessel, it is better to look from the top down - as was the case at TMI-2.

Alternatively, they could look at the outside of the RPV before opening it in order to determine any breaches to the primary systems and RPV. It may be possible that some pipes rupture, or some control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) housing tubes broke. That would be useful to know.

Some useful information on BWR details here - http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/npp2.pdf

NUCENG

Oct17-11, 01:40 PM

We keep having this conversation, which says a lot about my pig-headedness and your patience, both.

I think after the tents are up working inside the reactor buildings will be harder not easier for the reason that radioactive steam will still be wafting out even if all the water is below 100 degrees Celsius.

I do not know if it is worth the dose. Maybe it is. Depends on what one would find. I would at least try to put a borescope into the drywell, below the RPV bottom head.

I may see that I need to add more boron ASAP because there is fuel and it is in a nasty configuration.

I may see that the RPV is whole, or I may see that it isn't, which would probably affect the choice of cooling lines and help me minimize water use.

I may see other, unexpected things, such as severely cracked walls/floors, a big honking hole in the middle of the drywell floor into which the fuel is sinking and so on and so forth. Interesting stuff that may make me change my priorities radically.

I may see nothing, in which case I would retrieve the borescope, see what sort of dose it got and if it got hit by any neutrons and call it a day. Then you'd criticize me (rightly, because hindsight is always 100%!) for wasting time, money and exposing people to unnecessary risk.

No criticism planned or intended. I have no argument with you personally and neither of us will make that decision.

tsutsuji

Oct17-11, 09:52 PM

The IAEA is afraid that the Japanese government might set more severe decontamination standards than the IAEA is ready to accept:

The Japanese authorities (...) are encouraged to avoid over-conservatism which could not effectively contribute to the reduction of exposure doses.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/G129rev1_e.pdf advice 1 p. 4

for the next cropping season there is room for removing some of the conservatism
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/G129rev1_e.pdf advice 8 p. 5

Instead of "As low as reasonably achievable", the IAEA's philosophy seems to be "as high as reasonably achievable" :

It is important to avoid classifying as “radioactive waste” such waste materials that do not cause exposures that would warrant special radiation protection measures.
(...)
Residues that satisfy the clearance level can be used in various ways, such as the construction of structures, reclamations, banks and roads.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/G129rev1_e.pdf advice 5 p. 5

This would allow the removed material to be used in selected applications, e.g. together with clean material in the construction of structures, banks, reclamations or roads that will not pose undue risks to members of the public.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/G129rev1_e.pdf p.12

Pursuing a management strategy for all of these contaminated materials as radioactive waste due to over-conservatism would lead to enormous challenges in the timely establishment of a completely new infrastructure with regard to human resources, transportation and large facilities for processing and storage.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/G129rev1_e.pdf p.19

zapperzero

Oct18-11, 04:59 AM

No criticism planned or intended. I have no argument with you personally and neither of us will make that decision.

:biggrin: This is all hypothetical, of course. But I expressed myself in that manner to emphasize the fact that I agree with you - such a venture may very well yield nothing but a net loss of time, money and human health.

etudiant

Oct19-11, 07:59 PM

The IAEA is afraid that the Japanese government might set more severe decontamination standards than the IAEA is ready to accept:

Instead of "As low as reasonably achievable", the IAEA's philosophy seems to be "as high as reasonably achievable" :

I had thought that the Japanese government response was painfully uncoordinated and minimalist. So the IAEA comments to me seemed to be a recommendation to focus on the big picture and maximize the relief rather than to waste effort on something impractical such as removing several inches of soil across very large areas.
Tsutsuji- sans comment really makes me sit up and reflect. Very interesting perspective.

joewein

Oct20-11, 02:08 AM

My Letter to the Editor (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20111020a3.html) about radiation levels in Okutama/Tokyo and the lack of external venting scrubbers in Japanese BWRs was published in Japan Times today. I wrote it in reply to another LTE (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20111016a6.html) that appeared in the paper last Sunday.

Okutama is no Chernobyl

By JOE WEIN
Tokyo
I commend Giovanni Fazio in his letter of Oct. 16 for drawing attention to the fact that Okutama, with some of the highest radiation levels in Tokyo, is also a major source of drinking water for its 13 million people. However, he overstates his case when claiming "Tokyo tap water comes from an area with cesium contamination at levels equivalent to the Chernobyl evacuation zones."

A helicopter survey found most of the mountains around Lake Okutama to be contaminated with between 10,000 and 30,000 Bq/m² of cesium 137. The "permanent control zone" around Chernobyl is defined as 555,000 Bq/m² and more while the evacuated "closed zone" is polluted with 1,480,000 Bq/m² and more.

We would not even be discussing such numbers if Tepco had invested in a scrubber to filter the emergency venting system of its reactors. Thirty years ago Sweden installed the so-called FILTRA system at its boiling water reactors. None of the Japanese nuclear power stations have such external scrubbers, which would have been dirt cheap compared to now trying to decontaminate hundreds of square kilometers of polluted land. Their installation should be mandatory for any reactors allowed to resume power production.

rmattila

Oct20-11, 05:16 AM

Thirty years ago Sweden installed the so-called FILTRA system at its boiling water reactors.

To be accurate, FILTRA is the name of the large gravel bed installation installed only at the Barsebäck site - all other Swedish (and Finnish) BWR:s got a smaller wet scrubber system, called plainly "filtered pressure reduction system of reactor containment", or shortly "system 362".

tsutsuji

Oct20-11, 07:21 AM

http://www.47news.jp/CN/201110/CN2011102001000778.html A petition requesting the decommissionning of all of the 10 nuclear reactors in Fukushima prefecture was passed at Fukushima prefectoral assembly.

tsutsuji

Oct25-11, 09:37 AM

http://mytown.asahi.com/ibaraki/news.php?k_id=08000001110250001 Ibaraki prefecture's nuclear safety commission has held its first open door meeting in its 32 year long history. On 24 October, the commission members heard the explanations of Tokai Daini NPP's plant manager about the NPP's safety measures. A wall able to withstand 15 m tsunamis will be built in three years' time.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20111025/t10013494961000.html The Atomic Energy Commission of Japan had a meeting on 25 October about the cost of severe accidents. An estimate of the cost of severe accidents under the hypothesis that such accidents occur from once in 500 years to once in 100,000 years is ¥ 0.0046 to 1.2 ¥ per kilowatt. The commission concludes that the cost of nuclear energy should increase from ¥ 5 to ¥ 6 (or ¥ 6 to ¥ 7) per kilowatt, and this is still the cheapest way of producing electricity. However one member pointed out that the cost of decontamination over wide areas (such as forests) and the cost of the disposal of the generated waste is not integrated in the estimate. According to him, the cost of severe accidents is 16 ¥ per kilowatt. His remark was added as reference in the report.

Martin Peters

Oct26-11, 09:38 AM

Thank you, Tsutsuji, for the extensive information you have provided.

The cost of energy that you mentioned is given in the original article in terms of yen per kilowatt-hour (not per kilowatt).

tsutsuji

Nov1-11, 05:15 AM

The cost of energy that you mentioned is given in the original article in terms of yen per kilowatt-hour (not per kilowatt).
Thanks for correcting the mistake.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/election/local/news/20111029-OYT1T00194.htm & http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/ann/news/web/html/211101003.html Three candidates (current mayor Kunio Hiramatsu, former governor Toru Hashimoto, and communist party's Koichi Watashi) of Osaka city's mayoral election (27 November 2011) advocate "exit from nuclear dependency". Osaka city owns 9% of Kansai Electric.

tsutsuji

Nov2-11, 07:30 AM

http://www.nikkei.com/news/headline/article/g=96958A9C93819481E2E0E2E0988DE2E0E3E3E0E2E3E38297 EAE2E2E2 Minister of economy and industry Yukio Edano reprimended NISA chief Hiroyuki Fukano for being late because the NISA, which had learnt about the risk of transient criticality at Fukushima Daiichi unit 2 late in the night of November 1, contacted the prime minister's office after 7 AM on November 2. According to cabinet chief secretary Osamu Fujimura, because temperature and pressure levels are stable, the NISA juged that "it is not a situation where a danger is immediately occurring" and waited until the next morning to tell the Prime Minister. Osamu Fujimura learnt about the events at around 9 AM after he came to the Kantei. Nuclear accident recovery is the government's top priority and information about possible nuclear fission must be passed to the government without delay, he said, criticizing the NISA.

URob

Nov8-11, 12:34 AM

Instead of "cold shutdown". How about "gassed up and ready to go".

ThinkToday

Nov8-11, 12:33 PM

I don't think taking the time to thoughtfully assess the cost (men/dose/money) v. benefit (information) of taking a look inside is a bad thing. I don't think a determination of what would be gained NOW and what would be changed NOW based on that look inside is a bad thing, especially if other assessment tools can be used. Beyond the obvious, my concern is the Japanese version of the NRC doesn't drag cleanup out the way it was at TMI, and end up with a systems (gasket/seal/pump/door/electronic monitoring, etc.) failures and rusted everything) because they weren't designed to be unattended for years on end. i.e. proceed carefully, but proceed.

As a former HP, I tend towards caution in opening things up and poking around. It would appear the “Lessons Learned” studies were left unread. I remember working at different sites in the US after TMI retrofitting systems identified from lessons learned. I’m curious if other countries took our lessons learned to heart. It seems like post accident cleanup strategies would be factored into plant design after TMI, and for that matter, after SL1. I think we’ve all gotten over the “it can’t happen here” thing. Anyone know what changed in Japan after TMI, if anything? I haven’t set foot in a plant for many years, but I’d think (hope) it’s better.

clancy688

Nov13-11, 11:38 AM

Outsourced from the main thread (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3613496&postcount=11658):

If I choose to be anti-nuke I want it based on sound science, NOT political considerations or activist driven pseudo science.

150.000 permanent displaced people are a perfect scientific reason, at least for me. I don't oppose nuke power because it's "killing more people than coal or whatever" - I oppose it because it has the capability to displace millions of people and wreck entire economies. If something goes wrong.

Let's take the current Fukushima example. The Tokyo metropolitan area is the economic hub and engine of Japan. It's the largest metropolitan economy of the world. One third of Japans GDP comes from Tokyo alone.
Let's imagine the whole Tokyo area would've been hit with 20-100 mSv/a+ radiation. First, we'd have over 30 million displaced people. And second, Japan would lose one third of its economy. The world would lose one third of Japans economy.
I don't even want to imagine the global recession which would've followed. A nightmare.

No burning coal plant has the ability to wreck entire economies. No gas plant. No wind turbine. If a dam fails, hydroelectric power may have the ability to wreak havoc over thousands of square miles. But there you can immediately start rebuilding everything once the water has drained. With a nuclear accident, you cannot. You have to wait for dozens of years until the nuclides are gone.

Astronuc

Nov13-11, 01:24 PM

Instead of "cold shutdown". How about "gassed up and ready to go". The Fukushima units 1-4 are history. Once they severely damaged the core, including control blades, possibly with some fuel melting, and then added seawater, those units are damaged beyond repair. Those units will have to be demolished.

SteveElbows

Nov13-11, 02:06 PM

My Letter to the Editor (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20111020a3.html) about radiation levels in Okutama/Tokyo and the lack of external venting scrubbers in Japanese BWRs was published in Japan Times today. I wrote it in reply to another LTE (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20111016a6.html) that appeared in the paper last Sunday.

Venting should be scrubbed as much as possible. However at Fukushima it seems likely that quite a lot of the contamination did not come from venting. For example various release estimate data suggests that reactor 2 was responsible for a lot of the contamination, and that reactor never got to vent through the stack. It is not possible to be completely sure about this because reactor 3 and the reactor building 4 explosion, along with any continued output from reactor 1, could be responsible for an unknown percentage of the emissions which fell on land on the March 15th peak. But at this point we certainly cannot rule out the prospect that far more than 50% of the contamination of Japanese land didn't come out through the proper venting path. Another factor is that the wind is though to have taken the initial reactor 3 venting emissions out to sea rather than contaminating the land.

URob

Nov13-11, 02:18 PM

Astronuc

Nov13-11, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by URob
Instead of "cold shutdown". How about "gassed up and ready to go".
The Fukushima units 1-4 are history. Once they severely damaged the core, including control blades, possibly with some fuel melting, and then added seawater, those units are damaged beyond repair. Those units will have to be demolished.

Sorry, I thought one of the reactors was in cold shutdown prior to the accident. Unit 4 reactor was empty, while Units 1, 2 and 3 scrammed when the sensors detected the earthquake. The secondary containment of Unit 4 was damaged by fire and some kind of explosion when hydrogen, apparently from Unit 3, ignited.

TEPCO's focus has been on trying to stabilize or bring to cold shutdown conditions, Units 1, 2 and 3. Besides the reactor cores, the balance of plant areas of Units 1-4 were also heavily damaged or destroyed.

joewein

Nov15-11, 11:14 PM

Venting should be scrubbed as much as possible. However at Fukushima it seems likely that quite a lot of the contamination did not come from venting.

Steve,

I think even in that scenario the unscrubbed vent path still plays a significant role, because the absence of more effective scrubbers may have acted as an incentive to postpone venting as much as possible in order not having to release unscrubbed gas into the environment around the plant.

Once the zirconium reaction set in, they had to vent to reduce pressure from hydrogen, but at the same time the fuel was already damaged by then, so it would have meant release of radioactivity. If they thought there was still a chance of restarting one of the cooling systems, gambling on the containment surviving until then may have looked like the lesser of two evils.

Had there been effective scrubbing available on the hardened vent path, earlier venting may have looked like the lesser evil. Tepco might have avoided the burst suppression chamber in unit 2 or gases leaking out around the reactor lid flanges in unit 3 and massive hydrogen explosion (if this is what led to those massive releases of radioactivity from these two units, far worse than from unit 1 which was vented).

zapperzero

Nov16-11, 03:42 AM

Once the zirconium reaction set in, they had to vent to reduce pressure from hydrogen, but at the same time the fuel was already damaged by then, so it would have meant release of radioactivity. If they thought there was still a chance of restarting one of the cooling systems, gambling on the containment surviving until then may have looked like the lesser of two evils.

This stuff should have been spelled out clearly in the severe accident management guidelines. There should have been no delays induced by decision-making and certainly no gambling. No electricity, water level so and so, pressure so and so, IC inactive? Vent. Now. No ifs, no buts, no waiting for the buses to leave or for the prime-minister to give the order.

URob

Nov25-11, 10:56 PM

Tepco http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201111240030
“Radioactive materials (such as cesium) that scattered and fell from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant belong to individual landowners there, not TEPCO.” ~ Tokyo Electric Power Company....

NUCENG

Nov26-11, 05:21 AM

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201111240030
“Radioactive materials (such as cesium) that scattered and fell from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant belong to individual landowners there, not TEPCO.” ~ Tokyo Electric Power Company....

Wow. That makes no sense, but is typical when lawyers are involved. By that logic a chemical polluter is not responsible for cleanup either.

PS corrected link in the quoted section above.

Astronuc

Nov26-11, 05:45 AM

clancy688

Nov26-11, 11:26 AM

By that logic, the people of Texas owned all parts of the space shuttle Columbia which fell on their property. Therefore there should've been no obligation to return those parts to NASA.

Caniche

Nov27-11, 04:20 PM

That's disgraceful, as well as absurd.

that's the logic of the market, absurd I know, but since we have no input let's just test it to destruction,good for a laff ψ

tsutsuji

Dec15-11, 07:55 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111215/1005_shinsei.html Fukushima prefecture has decided not to apply for a 3 billion yen subsidy it is entitled to as a prefecture hosting nuclear power plants. This is consistent with the prefectoral assembly motion requesting the decommissioning of all NPPs in Fukushima prefecture. A number of local governments such as Minamisoma have also decided not to apply for NPP-related subsidies. Kagoshima prefecture and Satsumasendai city are also not applying for the subsidy concerning the extension of Sendai NPP.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 02:26 AM

NUCENG

Dec16-11, 02:45 AM

Sudden outbreak of common sense?

I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense for them to turn down that money. There will be recovery work ongoing at the Fukushima Daichi plants for up to 40 years from the latest estimates. They probably won't be paying taxeds since they won't be producing any profit. In the meantime the prefecture has a huge displaced population, security and other ongoing expenses. Does accepting that money obligate them to allow F1-5, F1-6, and Fukushima Daini to resume operation?

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 02:59 AM

I am skimming through docs that NUCENG has graciously provided in another thread.
I came across this wonderful example of doublethink and I thought I'd share:

"The potential for containment failure from core melt accidents
has been under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) for some time. The possibility of early failure with the
potential for a large release of radioactivity (aerosol concentration
is higher early in the accident) is the principle reason
for this attention. Containment loads that might lead to such
failure can result from severe accidents not normally considered
in the design basis of nuclear power plants.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6476557-e9NERk/6476557.pdf
bolding is mine. NRC is aware of the possibility, but does not think plants should be designed taking the possibility into account, yet proceeds with analyzing the possibility because of its likeliness.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 03:01 AM

Does accepting that money obligate them to allow F1-5, F1-6, and Fukushima Daini to resume operation?
Presumably you cannot benefit from something AND want it gone :biggrin:

NUCENG

Dec16-11, 03:13 AM

Presumably you cannot benefit from something AND want it gone :biggrin:

As opposed to typical decisions by politicians in every other country on earth, that makes Japan the sole exception! (Sorry, no emoticon for BIGGER GRIN.)

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 03:20 AM

As opposed to typical decisions by politicians in every other country on earth, that makes Japan the sole exception! (Sorry, no emoticon for BIGGER GRIN.)

We have to conclude that politicians transition from elastic to plastic deformation mode when their approval rate drops below the "pitchforks and torches" threshhold :rofl:

NUCENG

Dec16-11, 03:39 AM

I am skimming through docs that NUCENG has graciously provided in another thread.
I came across this wonderful example of doublethink and I thought I'd share:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6476557-e9NERk/6476557.pdf
bolding is mine. NRC is aware of the possibility, but does not think plants should be designed taking the possibility into account, yet proceeds with analyzing the possibility because of its likeliness.

Just a wee bit overstated and out of context. The fallacy is to imply that a scenario must be part of design basis if it is possible. It is possible that an asteroid will hit a nuclear plant. Any idea on how we should design for that? It is possible that the end of the world will occur on December 21, 2012. Does anyone plan to not shop for Christmas? Should nuclear plants in Nebraska and Iowa design for tsunamis? The report you are quoting addresses possibilities, but not the probability of the event. Japan's accident does not automatically mean every plant is vulnerable to the same scenario. For example, if plants implement actions to address extended station blackouts and harden against external events (i.e., flooding), are further upgrades to hardened vent systems really going to improve safety?

Another example of a question to consider: In Japan there were problems with steam driven heat removal systems (HPCI, RCIC, and Isolation Condensers). There were no low pressure safety systems available due to loss of AC power. The plants delayed depressurization and venting hoping to use the steam driven systems as long as possible. If the corrective actions taken in haste are to require earlier depressurization and venting in hopes of using fire pumps as alternative injection sources, does that actually increase risk? Consider that at Fukushima these alternate injection systems were disrupted at least twice by the hydrogen explosions. If you add filters to the hardened wetwell vent systems what impact does the backpressure have on its venting capacity? The optimum solution is not obvious.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 04:00 AM

Just a wee bit overstated and out of context. The fallacy is to imply that a scenario must be part of design basis if it is possible. The report you are quoting addresses possibilities, but not the probability of the event.
If it's probable enough to spend money on experiments and analysis, maybe it is probable enough to take into account in the design process?

Japan's accident does not automatically mean every plant is vulnerable to the same scenario. For example, if plants implement actions to address extended station blackouts and harden against external events (i.e., flooding), are further upgrades to hardened vent systems really going to improve safety?
I happen to believe that hardened vents are a poor idea so I don't know how to reply to the specific question. I am aware that planning to fight the last war can be somewhat stupid, but now that I think of it, these are machines; commonalities of design imply common failure modes.

Another example of a question to consider: In Japan there were problems with steam driven heat removal systems (HPCI, RCIC, and Isolation Condensers). There were no low pressure safety systems available due to loss of AC power. The plants delayed depressurization and venting hoping to use the steam driven systems as long as possible.
They delayed because of the aforementioned hardened vent system, whose existence gave them the choice between a massive, intentional contaminants release NOW and a possibly even larger, but unintentional release LATER. That is a bad choice to present someone with in a complex crisis situation. In the event, the venting system turned out to not be operational in at least one reactor, sadly.

If the corrective actions taken in haste are to require earlier depressurization and venting in hopes of using fire pumps as alternative injection sources, does that actually increase risk? Consider that at Fukushima these alternate injection systems were disrupted at least twice by the hydrogen explosions. If you add filters to the hardened wetwell vent systems what impact does the backpressure have on its venting capacity? The optimum solution is not obvious.

I think that requiring earlier depressurization increases the risk of seeing another big release, while somewhat decreasing the risk of another melt-through. I do not believe that anyone has analyzed the respective risks to the population before making this decision. It seems moot anyway, as the target should be "no release".

As to backpressure, I think there is such a measure as the effective cross-section of a filter. One just has to make it big enough. The swedes seem to be on the right track, to me, with their artificial swamp thing.

Another solution if you want a small, cheap filter would be to have a buffer somewhere, a bladder or a hole in the ground or a long pipe or something and vent into that first, then rely on the filter for subsequent, smaller releases and for slowly processing the initial one.

NUCENG

Dec16-11, 04:36 AM

If it's probable enough to spend money on experiments and analysis, maybe it is probable enough to take into account in the design process?

I happen to believe that hardened vents are a poor idea so I don't know how to reply to the specific question. I am aware that planning to fight the last war can be somewhat stupid, but now that I think of it, these are machines; commonalities of design imply common failure modes.

They delayed because of the aforementioned hardened vent system, whose existence gave them the choice between a massive, intentional contaminants release NOW and a possibly even larger, but unintentional release LATER. That is a bad choice to present someone with in a complex crisis situation. In the event, the venting system turned out to not be operational in at least one reactor, sadly.

I think that requiring earlier depressurization increases the risk of seeing another big release, while somewhat decreasing the risk of another melt-through. I do not believe that anyone has analyzed the respective risks to the population before making this decision. It seems moot anyway, as the target should be "no release".

As to backpressure, I think there is such a measure as the effective cross-section of a filter. One just has to make it big enough. The swedes seem to be on the right track, to me, with their artificial swamp thing.

Another solution if you want a small, cheap filter would be to have a buffer somewhere, a bladder or a hole in the ground or a long pipe or something and vent into that first, then rely on the filter for subsequent, smaller releases and for slowly processing the initial one.

Mathematicians have calculated PI to a number of decimal places that is absurd in computing any useful result. Experiments determine possibilities, and again, practical applications also need to consider probabilities, or we'd all still be living in caves.

Operators at Fukushima were not wringing their hands over the decision to vent. There were three causes of the delay. First, their procedures didn't allow venting until containment pressure was twice its design rating, while the standard in GE design for the hardened vent was to vent before exceeding design pressure. Second, they had delays to get corporate and government permission to vent. Finally, they waited until initial evacuations were complete. In the meantime they had lost the ability to depressurize the reactor to allow alternative makeup systems to be used to cool the core, and the containment was leaking fission products and hydrogen.

I agree that the target should be no release, and that means preventing core damage from external events or extended SBOs. But we must also have some level of design for severe (beyond design basis) accidents. You may be spot on about early depressurization. You may also be right about filtration options for the vent path. But you also may be totally underestimating the interaction of the potential solutions. I was trying to help you see that by the discussion of interplay with early depressurization and venting. NRC and industry (and "watchdog" groups) have begun a series of meetings to discuss these complex issues. When trascripts or webcasts are available I will post links to the discussions. I hope you will see I am urging detailed evaluations for the options to make certain the results actually improve safety.

clancy688

Dec16-11, 04:41 AM

The report you are quoting addresses possibilities, but not the probability of the event. Japan's accident does not automatically mean every plant is vulnerable to the same scenario.

That kind of thought chain is exactly what maneuvered us in this kind of mess in the first place.

"It can happen, but it's very unlikely that it will happen, so we won't take counter measures since hardening the plant against low possibility events will be extremely expensive and, as we already concluded, not necessary anyways. Why should we take measures against something we are sure won't happen during our lifetime?"

That kind of thinking may be applicable for normal plants, industry and even dams. But not for nuclear power which has the unique chance of actually making giant areas of land (with lots of other industry) off limits for years.
If a normal plant pops you lose the plant. And perhaps everything which's near to the plant. If a nuclear plant pops, there's the possibility that you lose the whole freaking state.

So if you find a problem in such a plant, you are obligated to take counter measures, whatever the chances of this event happening or not happening are.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 04:58 AM

Operators at Fukushima were not wringing their hands over the decision to vent. There were three causes of the delay.

they had delays to get corporate and government permission to vent. Finally, they waited until initial evacuations were complete.

IOW, hand-wringing on several levels. It is worth noting that their SAMG did not say "delay venting until evacuation is complete" (it would have been absurd if they did). That was a decision taken by plant management.

I agree that the target should be no release, and that means preventing core damage from external events or extended SBOs.
Yes.

But we must also have some level of design for severe (beyond design basis) accidents.

AHH. THANK YOU. It took me a while, but now I can lay the problem out: severe accidents should not be kept out of the design basis.

There should be provisions to design for them in a reasonable manner (as per your earlier asteroid example) but they should NOT be kept out of consideration. At the very least, one should design taking into account the severe accidents that have already happened!

You may be spot on about early depressurization. You may also be right about filtration options for the vent path. But you also may be totally underestimating the interaction of the potential solutions. I was trying to help you see that by the discussion of interplay with early depressurization and venting. NRC and industry (and "watchdog" groups) have begun a series of meetings to discuss these complex issues. When trascripts or webcasts are available I will post links to the discussions. I hope you will see I am urging detailed evaluations for the options to make certain the results actually improve safety.

I do see that interaction between various safety systems and procedures needs to be taken into account. A small filter may be worse than no filter, hence the decision to have un-filtered vents of last resort. A big filter of new design is more expensive, may not be needed or may not work as advertised.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 06:34 AM

I like the asteroid example.

If it's an average everyday asteroid, it will be about the size of a fist and will have enough energy to go through several feet of concrete. So at the very worst, we are looking at a missile incident resulting in containment breach and a small-break LOCA.

Turns out this case is already taken into account in plant design and accident management procedures, because turbine blades tend to go AWOL from time to time.

Bigger asteroids tend to break up in the atmosphere and make big booms, in the megatons TNT equivalent... it is hard to know, because they are so rare, where to stop hardening the structure against overpressure. But such cases are taken somewhat into account, given that containment is designed to handle airplanes falling on top of it and smallish bombs going off in the vicinity.

As to other effects, Tunguska is thought to have produced a magnitude 5 quake at ground zero - well within design parameters.

Even bigger ones, that don't break up? Multi-megaton equivalent ground bursts, we have MUCH bigger problems than just a destroyed NPP. Of course, the tsunami/quake combo wrought such devastation and killed so many people that it can be compared to a largish asteroid. But then, they are much rarer than tsunamis.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 06:40 AM

In simulator training for aircraft, it is common for the instructors to simply throw problems you, like this: "the APU is gone, your electronic instruments are all dead. Oh btw, engine #1 is on fire" without regard for how probable the event is, just taking care that the situation IS recoverable from, in most cases.

Is this not the case with NPP simulators? Do simulated accident scenarios all have attached probabilities? Does anyone go "oh we won't train for a LOCA this year because they are so rare"?

NUCENG

Dec16-11, 10:54 AM

AHH. THANK YOU. It took me a while, but now I can lay the problem out: severe accidents should not be kept out of the design basis.

There should be provisions to design for them in a reasonable manner (as per your earlier asteroid example) but they should NOT be kept out of consideration. At the very least, one should design taking into account the severe accidents that have already happened!

The probability of a large meteor or asteroid striking the earth is about once per million years. The probability of striking a nuclear plant or close by is even lower. Therefore it is NOT considered part of design basis.

I like the asteroid example.

If it's an average everyday asteroid, it will be about the size of a fist and will have enough energy to go through several feet of concrete. So at the very worst, we are looking at a missile incident resulting in containment breach and a small-break LOCA.

Turns out this case is already taken into account in plant design and accident management procedures, because turbine blades tend to go AWOL from time to time.

Bigger asteroids tend to break up in the atmosphere and make big booms, in the megatons TNT equivalent... it is hard to know, because they are so rare, where to stop hardening the structure against overpressure. But such cases are taken somewhat into account, given that containment is designed to handle airplanes falling on top of it and smallish bombs going off in the vicinity.

As to other effects, Tunguska is thought to have produced a magnitude 5 quake at ground zero - well within design parameters.

Even bigger ones, that don't break up? Multi-megaton equivalent ground bursts, we have MUCH bigger problems than just a destroyed NPP. Of course, the tsunami/quake combo wrought such devastation and killed so many people that it can be compared to a largish asteroid. But then, they are much rarer than tsunamis.

In simulator training for aircraft, it is common for the instructors to simply throw problems you, like this: "the APU is gone, your electronic instruments are all dead. Oh btw, engine #1 is on fire" without regard for how probable the event is, just taking care that the situation IS recoverable from, in most cases.

Is this not the case with NPP simulators? Do simulated accident scenarios all have attached probabilities? Does anyone go "oh we won't train for a LOCA this year because they are so rare"?

Simulator training for operators includes some beyond design basis conditions to exercize SAMGs. SBOs are typical. The only way to exercise evacuations or offsite releases is to assume a beyond design basis core damage scenario and containment failure or leakage. In fact there are scenarios that have to assume release of fission products equivalent to multiple core source terms to fully exercise parts of emergency plans. So-called B.5.b equipment requirements assume large plant area damage from aircraft or terrorist attacks, while the design basis against terror attacks or airplane impacts is to prevent the success of the attack.

Again, Fukushima clearly indicates that extended SBO and external events need to be reconsidered. But if thos issues are resolved the whole issue of filtering hardened vents may be moot because its is at risk periods equivalent to the asteroid strike,

Your example of the LOCA is problematic.
The design basis LOCA is a double ended break of the largest pipe, plus the effects of pipe whip and jet impact, plus all equipment failures as a direct result of the LOCA, and finally assuming the single failure of safety systems or power supplies that results in the worst consequences. The design must assure that the core is not damaged in this scenario. But in addition, design bases for containment and SBGT are evaluated for assumed system leakage and fission product release from an arrested core melt scenarion without causing overexposure to workers or the public.

zapperzero

Dec16-11, 12:14 PM

The probability of a large meteor or asteroid striking the earth is about once per million years. The probability of striking a nuclear plant or close by is even lower. Therefore it is NOT considered part of design basis.

I was unclear, I mean that some events should rightfully be excluded.

rmattila

Dec16-11, 01:21 PM

Even though the design bases in pretty much all Western nations were initially based on the NRC:s criteria from the 1960's, the definitions have since diverged.

Here in Finland, for example, severe accidents were included in the design bases in the 1980's, with specific criteria for failure assumptions (pretty much all "normal" safety systems and instrumentation assumed lost), containmet loads, equipment qualification for the core meltdown conditions, allowable releases (100 TBq Cs-137) etc., and backfittings (filtered ventings, passive containment flooding systems etc.) were made at the old plants. For new plants, a more robust core catcher has been required since the early 1990's.

A more recent development has been a systematic approach to so called "design extension conditions" (DEC), which were outside the original design bases. These conditions include e.g. situations with a common cause failure in any of the safety systems, other complex accident sequences or very rare natural events, and the category has its own design rules and acceptance criteria (to be demonstrated when applying a construction or operating permit and ever 10 years during operation).

So all in all, the design basis of plants consists of three event categories based on the conservatively estimated frequency of the initiating event:

1. the "old-fashioned" design basis conditions
DBC1, normal operation
DBC2, anticipated operational occurrences, f > 1e-2/a
DBC3, Class 1 postulated accidents, 1e-2/a < f < 1e-3/a
DBC4, Class 2 postulated accidents, f < 1e-3/a

2. Design extension conditions, events with an estimated frequency between 1e-4/a and 1e-7/a
DEC A, DBC2-3 with a CCF in a safety system
DEC B, complex accident sequence (=multiple failures)
DEC C, very rare events (such as a collision of a large passenger aircraft)

3. Severe accidents, events exceeding the acceptance criteria for DECs
total sum of all severe accident even trees shall be lower than 1e-5/a

Summing up, the cutoff frequency for events to be considered in the design is of the order of 1e-7, and there's the additional reuirement that the sum for all such events shall be lower than 1e-5. And the severe accident systems shall be able to fulfill their design basis so that the probability for exceeding the acceptance criteria for severe accidents is lower than 5e-7/a.

Since all these event categories contain explicit design rules and acceptance criteria, it is natural to include them all in the concept "design basis" of the plant. I have the impression that many other countries are also taking steps in this direction, so it may become internationally more common to redefine the "design basis" to go beyond the traditional DBC2-4 events with a single (or double in some countries) failure.

nikkkom

Dec17-11, 06:25 PM

Again, Fukushima clearly indicates that extended SBO and external events need to be reconsidered. But if thos issues are resolved the whole issue of filtering hardened vents may be moot because its is at risk periods equivalent to the asteroid strike.

I see that you definitely won't be convinced that your attitude is wrong until a F1/Chernobyl scale release of Cs-137 in the US. Just don't say no one was telling you so.

NUCENG

Dec18-11, 02:22 AM

I see that you definitely won't be convinced that your attitude is wrong until a F1/Chernobyl scale release of Cs-137 in the US. Just don't say no one was telling you so.

If my attitude is wrong, it is at least based on detailed knowledge and study. If you can show me where I am wrong with something of the same credibility, please post. Otherwise it comes down toL "You are wrong, and I am right, because I am right."

NUCENG

Dec18-11, 02:24 AM

I was unclear, I mean that some events should rightfully be excluded.

Agreed

nikkkom

Dec18-11, 01:41 PM

If my attitude is wrong, it is at least based on detailed knowledge and study. If you can show me where I am wrong with something of the same credibility, please post.

I told you several times already: in my opinion, the F1 disaster itself is a sufficient proof that existing NPPs are not secure enough. Snails' pace reaction from NRC and "it's all stupid Japanese's fault" attitude from US nuclear industry reinforces my POV. Feel free to disagree.

NUCENG

Dec18-11, 02:42 PM

I told you several times already: in my opinion, the F1 disaster itself is a sufficient proof that existing NPPs are not secure enough. Snails' pace reaction from NRC and "it's all stupid Japanese's fault" attitude from US nuclear industry reinforces my POV. Feel free to disagree.

Your continuous reference to "stupid Japanese fault" is racist, and a total mistatement of my position. Your simplistic view of design basis is totally indefensible. Is the fact of an automobile accident or airplane crash "sufficient proof" that cars and airplanes aren't safe enough? Yes, accidents do point out things that can be better. But,The design of a car or airplane can never fully protect from human error, deliberate attack, or even faulty materials or design. There is risk in transportation, but there are benefits, too, so we continue to fly and drive. It is absurd to believe nuclear plants need to be scrapped ot install systems that have no impact on safety, just to satisfy people who want to ignore the basic truth of risk-awareness.

I have agreed with you "several times" that there are lessons in the Fukushima accident for all nuclear plants. As to a "snails pace," We still are getting revelations on things like corium/concrete interaction, which are based on theory and guesswork, because noone has seen inside the containments yet. NRC is planning to begin issuing orders in the next few months, even though some of it based on supposition and "best guess" information. Do you want efforts to be fast and wrong or deliberate and useful? (Yeah, I know, you want it fast and right! Too bad, it doesn't work that way.) The North Anna earthquake may indicate that there is no need for knee jerk reactions. NRC, IAEA, and every other nuclear power operator seems to agree. Even Germany continues to operate nuclear plants while they plan to move to other sources.

So "feel free to disagree" with me. I enjoy informed argument. But please, if you want to debate, bring something to the discussion other than implying that I am direspectful of the Japanese, trying to twist my position and the tired old anti-nuclear rhetoric.

clancy688

Dec18-11, 05:44 PM

Even Germany continues to operate nuclear plants while they plan to move to other sources.

Not quite. We shut down the oldest eight of our 17 reactors a couple of days after Fukushima. And didn't turn them on again. And don't intend to turn them on again. Ever.
All of those eight reactors were built during the early seventies, that's probably the generation which makes the bulk of the american plants. In fact, not a single active U.S. plant was built after 1974. Which means that your most recent and most advanced plant design in use is exactly the design we shut down immeadiately because we deemed it to unsafe to operate any further.

If you'd apply recent German decisions on operating nuclear plants in the U.S., you'd have exactly zero plants running next week.

nikkkom

Dec18-11, 05:44 PM

Your continuous reference to "stupid Japanese fault" is racist, and a total mistatement of my position.

To think that *Japanese* regulators and NPP owners can (knowingly or unknowingly) (1) underestimate tsunami risk and (2) fail to train personnel for a prolonged SBO scenario, but *American, French, etc* regulators and NPP owners are somehow immune to this is, indeed, wrong. (Whether its racism, arrogance or unwillingness to spend $$$ on safety upgrades is, frankly, not something I'm interested in figuring out. I want to see meaningful safety upgrades).

Your simplistic view of design basis is totally indefensible. Is the fact of an automobile accident or airplane crash "sufficient proof" that cars and airplanes aren't safe enough? Yes, accidents do point out things that can be better.

F1 points out that (1) plant personnel needs to know how to vent reactor and containment in a prolonged SBO and (2) this venting needs to be filtered. Before F1, we could have assumed that it's a very unlikely situation and thus plants and people need not be prepared for it. After F1, I find it hard to believe that a "very unlikely situation" happened in only 6*10^1 years of humanity's history of running NPPs. It _IS_ not that rare. We just got the empirical proof explode in our faces.

It is absurd to believe nuclear plants need to be scrapped ot install systems that have no impact on safety, just to satisfy people who want to ignore the basic truth of risk-awareness.

A scrubber on the vent does have a significant impact: it reduces contamination after venting. As such, it may make personnel less hesitant to vent when they need to - because they know they aren't dusting their children with large amounts of Cs-137...

As to a "snails pace," We still are getting revelations on things like corium/concrete interaction, which are based on theory and guesswork, because noone has seen inside the containments yet. NRC is planning to begin issuing orders in the next few months, even though some of it based on supposition and "best guess" information. Do you want efforts to be fast and wrong or deliberate and useful?

Japanese still did not release their accident report (which is outrageous too), but basic sequence of events which led to hydrogen explosions and meltdown is well-known for good six months already:

faulty EDG locations,
faulty distribution of emergency battery power,
faulty emergency systems (no light, no instrumentation, no nothing),
personnel untrained for extended SBO (doesn't know what to do),
failure to engage passive emergency cooling systems even where they existed,
failure to vent containments and reactors before Zr/steam reaction and meltdown,
failure to vent reactor buildings to prevent hydrogen accumulation.

How many years do we need to wait until NRC starts to act on these lessons learned?

zapperzero

Dec18-11, 05:54 PM

The only way to exercise evacuations or offsite releases is to assume a beyond design basis core damage scenario and containment failure or leakage.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Are you saying that design basis events cannot possibly result in core damage and containment failure?

clancy688

Dec18-11, 06:09 PM

As far as I understand a containment failure is per definitionem a beyond design basis accident.

At least here in Germany, the "design basis accident" (GAU - Größter Anzunehmender Unfall, largest assumable accident) is exactly the kind of accident, the plant still can cope with without releasing radioactivity to the environment.
So a "design basis accident" can include core damages (I'd classify TMI as a design basis accident), but doesn't necessarily have to. For modern plants with core catchers, even a fullscale meltdown and -through probably still counts "only" as a design basis accident, because the plant is designed to handle even that.
But older plants, like Fukushima, are not.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no standard definition of a "design basis accident" and a "beyond design basis accident". It depends on the type of plant you're looking at. And for some (older plants), design basis accidents don't include meltdowns, because that's clearly beyond the design basis. But containment failure is IMHO always a beyond design basis accident.

zapperzero

Dec18-11, 06:27 PM

And for some (older plants), design basis accidents don't include meltdowns, because that's clearly beyond the design basis. But containment failure is IMHO always a beyond design basis accident.

You are saying that almost no NPP existing today is designed to "fail safe" or even just "fail gracefully", yes?

clancy688

Dec18-11, 06:39 PM

You are saying that almost no NPP existing today is designed to "fail safe" or even just "fail gracefully", yes?

I don't know, ask NUCENG, he's the nuclear engineer. ;)

But I'd say that statistics indicate that plants of the sixties and seventies, which make the bulk of the plants in operation, are not what you could define as "hardened against meltdown accidents", wouldn't you agree so?

And the development of the core catcher technology is indeed a hint that meltdowns are not "treatable" at older plants. If they could cope with a meltdown, why developing core catchers?

nikkkom

Dec18-11, 06:49 PM

You are saying that almost no NPP existing today is designed to "fail safe" or even just "fail gracefully", yes?

Yes. Almost all existing NPPs require *active* cooling for weeks after shutdown, and within a few days after that fails for whatever reason, they *will* spew lots of radioactive dirt, one way or another.

clancy688

Dec18-11, 06:59 PM

and within a few days after that fails

Days? It's hours. F1 melted down within a few hours after the tsunami triggered the SBO. F2 and F3 also melted down within a few hours after the last line of defense (RCIC) failed. Up to that moment, they were cooled. Not quite sufficiently, but enough to prevent any catastrophic accident.
TMI melted down within hours as well. But since it was a PWR with the control rods entering from the top, there was no RPV breech since the RPV had no failure points (control rod entrances) at the bottom.
Again, I'm no nuclear engineer, but I'd say a comparison between TMI and F2 and F3 clearly shows that the BWR design is suffering of a deadly design flaw.

nikkkom

Dec18-11, 07:17 PM

Days? It's hours.

I said "...they will spew lots of radioactive dirt".

Meltdown is not a sufficient condition to do that. TMI melted down, but did not release significant amounts of contamination.

As an aside, TMI's release could easily be contained within PWR containment, but they had automatic sump pumps which dutifully pumped spilled primary coolant to the outside. Got this? That NPP had *automatic* radionuclide dispenser *in its design*! LOL...

Again, I'm no nuclear engineer, but I'd say a comparison between TMI and F2 and F3 clearly shows that the BWR design is suffering of a deadly design flaw.

I don't see much difference. TMI's condition was easier - they _did_ have AC and cooling water. In fact, they had them entire time... Thus the results ended up to be much less "spectacular"...

clancy688

Dec18-11, 07:31 PM

I don't see much difference. TMI's condition was easier - they _did_ have AC and cooling water. In fact, they had them entire time... Thus the results ended up to be much less "spectacular"...

If we trust the TEPCO analysis, F2 and F3 had similar core damage (~50%) to TMI. But at TMI, no fuel escaped. At Fukushima, it did, at least according to TEPCO.

So there are three partial meltdowns, each time cooling was disrupted for several hours, each time half of the core went AWOL, two were BWRs and one was a PWR. In both BWR's case, the fuel escaped the RPV, in the PWR's case it didn't. That's what I meant with design flaw. The PWR proved that it could contain even a limited meltdown. And the BWRs did not, thanks to the openings for the control rods.

If I remember correctly, TMI finished clean-up during the early nineties. With escaped fuel, they'd probably just have started defueling this decade.

NUCENG

Dec18-11, 09:14 PM

Not quite. We shut down the oldest eight of our 17 reactors a couple of days after Fukushima. And didn't turn them on again. And don't intend to turn them on again. Ever.
All of those eight reactors were built during the early seventies, that's probably the generation which makes the bulk of the american plants. In fact, not a single active U.S. plant was built after 1974. Which means that your most recent and most advanced plant design in use is exactly the design we shut down immeadiately because we deemed it to unsafe to operate any further.

If you'd apply recent German decisions on operating nuclear plants in the U.S., you'd have exactly zero plants running next week.

Germany has stated that they will phase out nuclear power by 2022. What is the issue with my having said that Germany continues to operate nuclear plants? You have made your decision. If you want to make that decision for the US, immigrate, take citizenship, and vote here. I respect the decision you made, but that is apparently too much to ask in return. If that decision to shutdown nuclear power is reached in the US, I hope it won't just be because Germans think they might be unable to operate at a reasonable risk/benefit. Perhaps you should think of this as an opportunity to take a leap forward and create the intelligent grid to support all those renewable but unreliables while Americans make our nuclear plants safER (nothing is risk free).

As to the intent to turnoff nuclear in Germany, we will see. Never say never, especially since we already saw this cycle once before in Germany, and despite your objection, nuclear power is still being generated in Germany.

NUCENG

Dec18-11, 09:39 PM

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Are you saying that design basis events cannot possibly result in core damage and containment failure?

Yes. Even SBO is defined to be an extension of design requirements, but not a design basis event. That is because the current rules require at least two offsite power sources, then back that up with EDGs, batteries, and pneumatic supplies. The Fukushima Accident will result in significant upgrades to address extended SBOs, but the first focus has to be to ensure that those on-site sources can withstand the potential external events.

SBO history is a study in problem identification/corrective action efforts. There was the original Station Blackout Rule. Then there was the response to enhance security from terrorists or large aircraft impacts, now there will be likely increases in the duration and equipment available to combat the extended-SBO scenario. Of course. one additional thought might be to quit delaying construction of new plants that are designed for passive safety.

NUCENG

Dec18-11, 10:20 PM

Days? It's hours. F1 melted down within a few hours after the tsunami triggered the SBO. F2 and F3 also melted down within a few hours after the last line of defense (RCIC) failed. Up to that moment, they were cooled. Not quite sufficiently, but enough to prevent any catastrophic accident.
TMI melted down within hours as well. But since it was a PWR with the control rods entering from the top, there was no RPV breech since the RPV had no failure points (control rod entrances) at the bottom.
Again, I'm no nuclear engineer, but I'd say a comparison between TMI and F2 and F3 clearly shows that the BWR design is suffering of a deadly design flaw.

Pardon the correction, but TMI2 was a PWR with a large dry containmentn not a pressure suppression containment, and the event was a LOCA, not an SBO, but BWRs also learned from that accident. And deadly design flaws? Show me the bodies and compare that design flaw with the civil risk from the tsunami. Had TEPCO or the Regulators in Japan done their jobs to address the seismic/tsunami risk, you wouldn't have learned so much, nor apparently understood so little about that information.

Nuclear operators have a moral duty to take action when unrecognized risks are found. That didn't happen in Japan, but prevention of a similar accident is now the focus of the world. In spite of that, there are persistent claims that the "industry" is a bunch of greedy corporate stooges out to steal the world and destroy children in their cribs. That deliberately ignores the fact that we live in our communities, and have families and friends, and there are probably even a few treehuggers that would object if nuclear was anywhere near as destructive as fossil fuels.
.

rmattila

Dec19-11, 01:42 AM

So there are three partial meltdowns, each time cooling was disrupted for several hours, each time half of the core went AWOL, two were BWRs and one was a PWR. In both BWR's case, the fuel escaped the RPV, in the PWR's case it didn't. That's what I meant with design flaw. The PWR proved that it could contain even a limited meltdown. And the BWRs did not, thanks to the openings for the control rods.

If we think of a modern plant design - i.e. one with the fourth line of defence-in-depth (prevention of releases in a severe core damage situation) in place, there are two possible strategies to cope with the molten core: either try and cool it within the RPV or let it melt through and arrange a core catcher plus enable water filling of the containment up to the top of the initial fuel range.

In a BWR with a lot of bottom penetrations, it is probably not possible to reliably prevent a melt-through, and an ex-vessel core catcher will be required. In some PWR:s (those with a small thermal power, no bottom penetrations and a narrow reactor vessel cavity), it may be possible to passively cool the core debris through the RPV and prevent a melt-through - this is a strategy e.g. in the Loviisa VVER 440 reactors: http://sacre.web.psi.ch/ISAMM2009/oecd-sami2001/Papers/p10-lundstroem/oecd_paper_2.pdf - but in most modern PWR:s, the decay power is too high for such a strategy, and an ex-vessel core catcher will be needed.

From the environmental safety point of view, whether the molten core is within the RPV or below it plays no role, as long as the containment maintains its integrity. For the post-accident cleanup within the plant, it may be somewhat easier to remove the debris from within the vessel, but as long as the containment water filling is successful, it should be possible to cope with the corium in the core catcher as well, once the RPV has first been cleaned up and removed.

So I would't see incapability to contain the molten core within the RPV necessarily as a design flaw, as long as the containment integrity is not jeopardised as a consequence of a melt-through. However, for most of the existing plants, the containment has not been designed to cope with such a situation, and therefore prevention of melt-through will probably be the strategy to go with.

clancy688

Dec19-11, 03:34 AM

What is the issue with my having said that Germany continues to operate nuclear plants?

You compared the situation to the U.S. It's my understanding of your comment that you tried to use the still running NPPs in Germany as proof that even anti-nuclear states don't see dangers in running old plants for a couple of more years.
Which's not entirely correct, at least if you compare the U.S. and Germany. Because, as I already stated, Germany SEES danger in running plants which are as old as the ones in the U.S. And therefore shuts those reactors down immediately.

As to the intent to turnoff nuclear in Germany, we will see. Never say never, especially since we already saw this cycle once before in Germany, and despite your objection, nuclear power is still being generated in Germany.

Well, yes. Our government already set us up once. And then those dipshits decided to prolong the lifetime of every NPP back in autumn last year. At least we'd had fun watching the decision blowing up in their faces in March. The FDP (liberal party), the most prominent supporter of nuclear power, went from 15% during the last election 2009 to 2.5% in current polls...

Pardon the correction, but TMI2 was a PWR with a large dry containmentn not a pressure suppression containment, and the event was a LOCA, not an SBO,
[...]
Had TEPCO or the Regulators in Japan done their jobs to address the seismic/tsunami risk, you wouldn't have learned so much, nor apparently understood so little about that information.

Of course it was a LOCA and Fukushima was an extended SBO. But in the end, the cause doesn't matter, because the result, loss of cooling for several hours, thus leading to a partial meltdown, is the same.
You can compare it to three car accidents. There are three cars, every car drives at ~30 miles, and each car crashes in the same corner at the same speed head first into a tree. One driver survived, two others didn't. Why? Is it because the surviving driver was drunken, while the other two lost control on an icy road?
Nope - why they crashed has absolutely no impact on the final outcome. One driver survived because his car had airbags and the other two didn't, and it doesn't matter the slightest if the surviving driver was the drunk one or one of the sober ones.

And deadly design flaws? Show me the bodies and compare that design flaw with the civil risk from the tsunami.

Uh, sorry. I didn't mean that literally. I used the "deadly" part in order to emphasize the danger coming from this design flaw.
Personally, I fear the economic consequences of nuclear accidents, not the health ones.

So I would't see incapability to contain the molten core within the RPV necessarily as a design flaw, as long as the containment integrity is not jeopardised as a consequence of a melt-through. However, for most of the existing plants, the containment has not been designed to cope with such a situation, and therefore prevention of melt-through will probably be the strategy to go with.

Sorry, but I had to laugh, really. That's what I made of your response:
"Possible meltthroughs are not a design flaw as long as the containment holds, but since most containments won't hold, they are indeed design flaws."

rmattila

Dec19-11, 03:41 AM

Sorry, but I had to laugh, really. That's what I made of your response:
"Possible meltthroughs are not a design flaw as long as the containment holds, but since most containments won't hold, they are indeed design flaws."

Well, that's more or less how it is with the old plants: you have to get along with what you have. The main design deficiency regarding severe accidents is in the containment design, and therefore you have to do whatever you can to keep the molten core within the reactor vessel - and that too is an add-on to the original design bases: more achievable in some designs than others.

With the new plant designs the situation is different, and a more balanced design can be achieved, either by keeping the melt within the RPV or letting it out in a controlled manner. The latter is a more common design choice.

NUCENG

Dec19-11, 05:17 AM

You compared the situation to the U.S. It's my understanding of your comment that you tried to use the still running NPPs in Germany as proof that even anti-nuclear states don't see dangers in running old plants for a couple of more years.
Which's not entirely correct, at least if you compare the U.S. and Germany. Because, as I already stated, Germany SEES danger in running plants which are as old as the ones in the U.S. And therefore shuts those reactors down immediately.

Once again, your understanding of my comment is flawed. My only intent was to say the Germany has not cut off all nuclear generation which means your country believes that the risk is low enough to operate some reactors while finding replacement sources.

Your defense that only the older plants are risky is also difficult to understand. So turning off the older plants makes the others immune to an accident? I know that isn't what you meant, but try this for one of those "Thought experiments" being touted all over this forum:

You turn German nuclear power into a dying occupation with an execution date 11 years from now, followed by decommissioning. How are you going to keep a highly technical, competent work force in light of that doomsday roughly one third of a career away? You still have fuel to store or reprocess. Perhaps you can export that problem, if you find any takers.

Well, yes. Our government already set us up once. And then those dipshits decided to prolong the lifetime of every NPP back in autumn last year. At least we'd had fun watching the decision blowing up in their faces in March. The FDP (liberal party), the most prominent supporter of nuclear power, went from 15% during the last election 2009 to 2.5% in current polls...

Exactly, it happened once and could happen again. Isn't that what you claim about Fukushima?

Of course it was a LOCA and Fukushima was an extended SBO. But in the end, the cause doesn't matter, because the result, loss of cooling for several hours, thus leading to a partial meltdown, is the same.
You can compare it to three car accidents. There are three cars, every car drives at ~30 miles, and each car crashes in the same corner at the same speed head first into a tree. One driver survived, two others didn't. Why? Is it because the surviving driver was drunken, while the other two lost control on an icy road?
Nope - why they crashed has absolutely no impact on the final outcome. One driver survived because his car had airbags and the other two didn't, and it doesn't matter the slightest if the surviving driver was the drunk one or one of the sober ones.

OK, lets use your three cars. The drunk driver was in a Toyota, His police officer let him drive anyway and he was killed. The driver in the Ford was killed, but people saw the carnage and decided to install airbags as well, and perhaps required a sobriety test ignition interlock. The BMW driver survived the crash thanks to his car that was a little newer and had airbags. But then he decided that cars were too risky so he ordered all cars without airbags off the road immediately and ordered automakers to stop production or importation of cars to his country by 2022 because we'd all have flying belts by then. I suppose bicycles are a good backup if that doesn't work out.

sorry. I didn't mean that literally. I used the "deadly" part in order to emphasize the danger coming from this design flaw.
Personally, I fear the economic consequences of nuclear accidents, not the health ones.

Me too, and luckily I don't have to worry about whether to calculate those consequences in Euros of Duetch Marks! (Just Kidding!)

NUCENG

Dec19-11, 05:41 AM

Well, that's more or less how it is with the old plants: you have to get along with what you have. The main design deficiency regarding severe accidents is in the containment design, and therefore you have to do whatever you can to keep the molten core within the reactor vessel - and that too is an add-on to the original design bases: more achievable in some designs than others.

With the new plant designs the situation is different, and a more balanced design can be achieved, either by keeping the melt within the RPV or letting it out in a controlled manner. The latter is a more common design choice.

Wouldn't it be better to keep the core from melting to begin with? We keep jumping over that potential and assuming there is no other way to skin this cat.

rmattila

Dec19-11, 06:03 AM

Wouldn't it be better to keep the core from melting to begin with? We keep jumping over that potential and assuming there is no other way to skin this cat.

That goes without saying. The question is: how many lines are needed in the defence in depth concept? The current trend seems to be towards a five-line defence. In the Finnish design guides the defence-in-depth is defined in the spirit of current IAEA guidelines as follows:

Safety functions in accordance with the defence-in-depth concept shall be assured through five successive levels of protection; the lowest two are designed to prevent accidents, whereas the remaining levels are designed to protect the plant, its operators and the environment from the adverse effects of an accident. The levels of defence are the following:

1) The first level is to prevent deviations from the normal operation of the plant. To achieve this, the design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of systems, structures and components and the operation of the plant shall comply with high standards of quality and reliability with adequate safety margins.

2) At the second level, provisions shall be made, despite the careful design and operation of the plant, for anticipated operational occurrences, and the plant shall be equipped with systems designed to detect and contain any anticipated operational occurrences and automatically place the plant in a controlled state.

3) At the third level, provisions shall be made for accidents by means of systems that are automatically actuated in the event of an accident, protect the barriers for confinement of radioactive materials, and prevent the accident from escalating into a severe accident. The third level shall be divided into two parts: level 3a and level 3b.

a. At level 3a, the objective is to control the postulated accidents (Class 1 and Class 2) arising from single initiating events and their consequential effects in order to limit the releases of radioactive materials.

b. At level 3b, the objective is to control design extension conditions, meaning:

• anticipated operational occurrences and Class 1 postulated accidents that involve a common-cause failure in the system designed for coping with the event concerned;
• combinations of failures selected on the basis of a probabilistic risk assessment; and
• rare events that are unlikely to occur but nevertheless considered possible, such as extreme weather phenomena or the impact of a large passenger airliner.

4) At level 4, the objective is to mitigate the consequences of a severe accident, in particular by ensuring the integrity and leaktightness of the containment.

5) At level 5, the objective is to mitigate the consequences of any major release of radioactive materials by means of emergency preparedness arrangements.

The levels 3b and 4 are those, where the old plant designs are not very strong. The whole idea of the "deterministic design philosophy" is to not be satisfied with the preventive actions, but to create a new independent defence line by postulating the loss of the previous ones. If each level is independent of the others and attains a ~99% reliability, the probability of a large release can be proven to be acceptably small. Without the 4th level, very much depends on the perfection of the 3rd one, and the defence is inevitably less deep. Existence of the 4th level does not, however, mean that one could be careless with the third one, and all practicable precautions shall be made to make a core melt as improbable as possible.

clancy688

Dec19-11, 10:05 AM

My only intent was to say the Germany has not cut off all nuclear generation which means your country believes that the risk is low enough to operate some reactors while finding replacement sources.

Your defense that only the older plants are risky is also difficult to understand. So turning off the older plants makes the others immune to an accident?

It lowers the risk. And we believe that there's an acceptable risk in operating a couple of newer plants for the next ten years. But at the same time, we believe that operating older plants increases those risks to a point to high for us to accept.

How are you going to keep a highly technical, competent work force in light of that doomsday roughly one third of a career away? You still have fuel to store or reprocess.

The loss of the competent work force is indeed a problem. I don't have any informations on how the plants cope with that specific problem, but it is definitely NOT new. The former socialist-green government decided a phase out of nuclear power in 2000. So the problem you're mentioning has already existed for 10 years.
I agree, it's a risk factor, but it's the only way to abolish power. As for the reprocessing - well, we're already sending everything we have to La Hague for reprocessing. Storage is more difficult... we still don't have a final storage depot. And are still looking for one.

Exactly, it happened once and could happen again. Isn't that what you claim about Fukushima?

The current political reality in Germany makes it very unlikely. Because of Fukushima, the Greens became actually strongest party in the state of Baden-Württemberg. That's a sensation and comparable to a green governor in Texas. ;)

OK, lets use your three cars. The drunk driver was in a Toyota, His police officer let him drive anyway and he was killed. The driver in the Ford was killed, but people saw the carnage and decided to install airbags as well, and perhaps required a sobriety test ignition interlock. The BMW driver survived the crash thanks to his car that was a little newer and had airbags. But then he decided that cars were too risky so he ordered all cars without airbags off the road immediately and ordered automakers to stop production or importation of cars to his country by 2022 because we'd all have flying belts by then. I suppose bicycles are a good backup if that doesn't work out.

That's quite a cynical sight... moreover, you turned my purely technical meltdown example into a political one.
So maybe we Germans are irrational. I can live with that. I won't criticize our phase-out decision just because other pro-nuclear instances keep calling us "pussies". ;)

NUCENG

Dec19-11, 06:25 PM

That goes without saying. The question is: how many lines are needed in the defence in depth concept? The current trend seems to be towards a five-line defence. In the Finnish design guides the defence-in-depth is defined in the spirit of current IAEA guidelines as follows:

The levels 3b and 4 are those, where the old plant designs are not very strong. The whole idea of the "deterministic design philosophy" is to not be satisfied with the preventive actions, but to create a new independent defence line by postulating the loss of the previous ones. If each level is independent of the others and attains a ~99% reliability, the probability of a large release can be proven to be acceptably small. Without the 4th level, very much depends on the perfection of the 3rd one, and the defence is inevitably less deep. Existence of the 4th level does not, however, mean that one could be careless with the third one, and all practicable precautions shall be made to make a core melt as improbable as possible.

This is worth spending some time on. I like that description and breakdown. Can you provide a link to this guidelines information? It is similar to discussions I heard in NRC meetings in the last week.

NUCENG

Dec19-11, 06:47 PM

It lowers the risk. And we believe that there's an acceptable risk in operating a couple of newer plants for the next ten years. But at the same time, we believe that operating older plants increases those risks to a point to high for us to accept.

The loss of the competent work force is indeed a problem. I don't have any informations on how the plants cope with that specific problem, but it is definitely NOT new. The former socialist-green government decided a phase out of nuclear power in 2000. So the problem you're mentioning has already existed for 10 years.
I agree, it's a risk factor, but it's the only way to abolish power. As for the reprocessing - well, we're already sending everything we have to La Hague for reprocessing. Storage is more difficult... we still don't have a final storage depot. And are still looking for one.

The current political reality in Germany makes it very unlikely. Because of Fukushima, the Greens became actually strongest party in the state of Baden-Württemberg. That's a sensation and comparable to a green governor in Texas. ;)

That's quite a cynical sight... moreover, you turned my purely technical meltdown example into a political one.
So maybe we Germans are irrational. I can live with that. I won't criticize our phase-out decision just because other pro-nuclear instances keep calling us "pussies". ;)

No, sir, I am not trying to be cynical or belittle the German decision. That would be just as wrong as accepting a belief that the Japanese are stupid as others here have tried to imply. I really hope you succeed in making renwables work for you. The smaller German physical land area is better suited than the US to make intelligent grid a reality. The US, on the other hand, requires a large grid which becomes much more vulknerable if you increase the portion of variable renewals. Further most of our transmission grid angenerators are aging and need to be updated. That convinces me that we need to maintain large baseload generation, and the health impacts of coal is a stronger argument than global warming. We also have a much larger total electrical demand, and now they are adding electrical vehicles to the mix.

There is some risk in the German approach that renewables and your grid may take longer than 2022. That was the point of my parable. That is not saying the plan is irrational. It is actually visionary. If it doesn't work out and you end up keeping those plants running a little longer, you are still following the will of your people and that doesn't make you pussies.

And if you succeed and we can copy from your example, that too can be good.

Dmytry

Dec20-11, 10:45 AM

Germans can perhaps go through with reduction of consumption as well. Passivhaus and all. With availability of cheap east european workforce it is easier to build work-intensive solutions of this kind.

The nuclear power is attractive to authoritarian type, a person who builds their worldview upon belief in the competence and incorruptibility of authorities (government), a person who is rendered extremely uncomfortable by any less optimistic assumptions.
This is something that Germans are understandably very vary about even 67 years after having witnessed the extremes of such approach; the German nuclear power plants may be very safe but at same time it is not possible for populace to know if they are very safe or it is a grand self deception, as with the small number of plants the safety can not be inferred from operation record.

Concorde is a good example of the safety self deception problem; before it crashed, was the 'safest' aircraft in history, with 0 crashes, and was often referred to as such. After Concorde crashed it became clear that it is in fact exceedingly unlikely it was anything but by far the least safe aircraft they had in operation; most airplanes would've been exceedingly unlikely to crash after so few flights; and suddenly it became clear that very significant safety issues have been consistently ignored as minor, leading to the crash; it was bound to fail because it never failed before.

Caniche

Dec20-11, 03:14 PM

If each level is independent of the others and attains a ~99% reliability, the probability of a large release can be proven to be acceptably small.

All fine and dandy ,but when a statistically predictable larger than average nuclear disaster occurs ,how do you tell the 1,000,000 victims this is acceptable?

zapperzero

Dec21-11, 09:56 AM

All fine and dandy ,but when a statistically predictable larger than average nuclear disaster occurs ,how do you tell the 1,000,000 victims this is acceptable?

Pah. Victims. If zero deaths is the goal, we start by forbidding personal automobiles and mandating rail travel for passengers between adjacent cities, not by closing the few NPPs in existence. Yes, even with the horrible toll of Chernobyl and the still unknown toll of Fukushima AND ten times the release at Chernobyl in an as-yet un-happened accident taken into account.

OTOH, the potential for economic damage from an NPP is effectively unbounded. It is no wonder that NPPs are never insured by private companies. So deciding whether to grant a license or extension is a matter of who wins the political debate - generally, the few, coordinated and monied will win and we will end up with more unsafe NPP designs in the long term. Classic tragedy of the commons case, just as with coal power.

Maybe the thing to do is to move the debate out of the political and into the technical realm.

We could, for instance, require operators to prove that their NPP will not release more than X amount of radioactive substances unless it is hit by a Tunguska-sized meteorite.

Just like that: is it possible? Y/N

Prove N, you get a license or extension. Fail to prove N, you get shut down. Sure, this will result in licenses being withdrawn for most/all NPPs in existence. But it would not be the end of nuclear power, as I am sure that more sane designs can be found and implemented rather quickly.

If we set a "maximum possible emissions" design criterion, then it all becomes simple: at most y hectares of land compromised forever, at most z years of human life lost if evacuation also fails for some reason. Everyone can then easily decide what insurance should cost, this can be factored into the cost of electricity produced and all is well and above-board, unlike now.

zapperzero

Dec21-11, 12:40 PM

All in all, we definitely have here either a flaw in IC design, or operator error. Or both.

Be very wary of blanket conclusions. I would like nothing better, if I was TEPCO, than to blame this whole thing on low-level employees. Alternatively, the story can easily become "we bought the best American technology, how were we to know it was flawed?".

Caniche

Dec21-11, 02:57 PM

Maybe the thing to do is to move the debate out of the political and into the technical realm.

We could, for instance, require operators to prove that their NPP will not release more than X amount of radioactive substances unless it is hit by a Tunguska-sized meteorite.

Just like that: is it possible? Y/N

Not really ,cos when things go tits up ,acceptable limits tend to get altered

Everyone can then easily decide what insurance should cost, this can be factored into the cost of electricity produced and all is well and above-board, unlike now.

Again ,not really cos that is not how the insurance industry operates . The commonly held perception of shared risk does not impact upon the corporate manifest of profit/bonus/ dividend maximisation. So clearly "everyone " does not decide what insurance should cost,not quite "above board" is it?You devil you:smile:

nikkkom

Dec21-11, 04:10 PM

Be very wary of blanket conclusions. I would like nothing better, if I was TEPCO, than to blame this whole thing on low-level employees. Alternatively, the story can easily become "we bought the best American technology, how were we to know it was flawed?".

What are your conclusions on this whole IC debacle, then? Things gone horribly wrong, yet no one is to blame? This position sounds rather Shuttle-Columbia-ish to me :(

zapperzero

Dec22-11, 07:25 AM

What are your conclusions on this whole IC debacle, then? Things gone horribly wrong, yet no one is to blame? This position sounds rather Shuttle-Columbia-ish to me :(

I never said or implied that. So far, I have formed the following opinions, listed here along with whom I suppose fingers should be pointed at:

0. The government of Japan and more specifically MEXT and NISA showed a grave lack of responsibility in the lead-up to, during and after the accident. They also exhibit all the signs of regulator capture. This part of the responsibility is, unfortunately, shared by the entire people of Japan.
1. grave errors in plant siting and site preparation (TEPCO, NISA)
2. grave errors in plant design and construction, esp. placement of EDGs but other things as well (by TEPCO, GE, NISA)
3. criminal negligence wrt tsunami defenses (TEPCO)
4. wrong SAMGs (TEPCO, GE, NISA)
5. possible failure to properly install, maintain and/or operate safety-critical equipment such as hydrogen recombiners and ICs (TEPCO, NISA)
6. possible operator errors in the initial phase of the accident (TEPCO, for not providing proper training/staffing, see 5 above)
7. Weak, wrong and un-coordinated first response, disastrous lack of general and specific disaster preparedness (J-gov in its entirety, prefectural government, TEPCO)

tsutsuji

Dec22-11, 08:47 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html Undercover journalist working at Daiichi says worker safety is not being adequately monitored and that "many Hitachi and Toshiba engineers that have presented new solutions have been told there is simply no money to try them".

nikkkom

Dec22-11, 09:49 AM

0. The government of Japan and more specifically MEXT and NISA showed a grave lack of responsibility in the lead-up to, during and after the accident. They also exhibit all the signs of regulator capture. This part of the responsibility is, unfortunately, shared by the entire people of Japan.
1. grave errors in plant siting and site preparation (TEPCO, NISA)
2. grave errors in plant design and construction, esp. placement of EDGs but other things as well (by TEPCO, GE, NISA)
3. criminal negligence wrt tsunami defenses (TEPCO)
4. wrong SAMGs (TEPCO, GE, NISA)
5. possible failure to properly install, maintain and/or operate safety-critical equipment such as hydrogen recombiners and ICs (TEPCO, NISA)
6. possible operator errors in the initial phase of the accident (TEPCO, for not providing proper training/staffing, see 5 above)
7. Weak, wrong and un-coordinated first response, disastrous lack of general and specific disaster preparedness (J-gov in its entirety, prefectural government, TEPCO)

Lets see what is probably applicable to other countries and needs fixing.

0. This is an always present danger. Go to allthingsnuclear.org - it has a few examples of NRC not doing its job. Even after F1, NRC's response seems to be slow. For one, they propose that US NPPs must increase their SBO coping time from 4 to 8 hours - IOW, they propose to uprate them to... F1-like standards (!!!) - F1 Unit 1 was (supposed to be) able to survive 8 hour SBO using IC. It must be a bad joke.

1,2. I have no idea how widespread is this.

3. Probably not unique. Fort Calhoun's sand bags don't instill much confidence either. And note that TEPCO for decades successfully shrugged off all suggestions about F1 being vulnerable to large tsunami. No reason to believe in other countries it (shrugging off) can't be done as easily too.

4/5/6. This can't be fixed. The only way to REALLY test emergency procedures and equipment is to have a REAL emergency. Anything less (such as drills) can be - and was! - successfully cheated. It (cheating) will happen again.

7. Hoping that ordinary operators will be able to always do the right thing under disaster conditions was (again - Chernobyl was the same) proven wrong. Probably can be mitigated by having specially trained and equipped nuclear disaster response teams on standby.

steve olsen

Dec24-11, 07:29 AM

In your posts you generally support a view that things in nuclear industry are okay in general. No big problems exist in NPPs operations and management wrt safety. Chernobul? Irrelevant, Russians were very careless - but we are much better than they. Fukushima? It was a big earthquake + "once in 1000 years tsunami", which exceeded what they were designing for. Looks like this (expected level of tsunami) was a mistake. Japanese were not well prepared, but we are much better than they.

That is your position, and I think it is a wrong position. US nuclear industry is certainly better wrt safety than Russians were, and is possibly somewhat better than Japanese, but not by a large margin. Instead of claiming that everything is hunky-dory, it should take a deep hard look into every detail of Fukushima lesson.

If US nuclear industry won't do it, and God forbid, there will be a meltdown in CONUS in the next 10-20 years, US nuclear power generation can kiss its *** goodbye.
Well said, in fact I believe that with an average of 1 pretty darn large nuclear accident every year (which cannot be covered up completely) nuke is proven to be too strong for human, too dangerous for the planet. We MUST find a better way to boil water.

steve olsen

Dec24-11, 07:40 AM

Great line, I really had to laugh out loud. Both hilarious and depressing.

I agree, trust is gone, for me, too. I was totally pro-nuke before Fukushima, but now I'm against it.
But overall I'd say that damn tsunami probably chose the one plant out of all those 500 stations in service worldwide which was actually the most vulnerable against such an attack. Pretty bad luck I'd say. And keep in mind that the whole station was from the same generation as Chernobyl and even TMI.
(By the way, we had three major accidents in civil NPPs and all of them happened in Units designed and built in the late sixties...)
They are getting old, start retiring them first, then the rest, and stop all new ones. It is clearcut. Nuke guys going to have to learn a new skill.

tsutsuji

Dec24-11, 07:41 AM

Tepco is providing a translation of the abstract at the top of the internal investigation interim report:

Fukushima Daiichi unit 1, March 12:

Since it was necessary to take into account the status of local personnel evacuation, this PCV venting was implemented after confirming the evacuation of the area’s residents.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/111202e13.pdf page 8/16

There is more in the following Chugoku Shinbun article, among other paragraphs which are exactly the same as those translated above :
(...)
At Futaba Hospital on the morning of March 12th, hospital employees went to the town hall requesting evacuation support. The patients that were able to walk by their own strength were evacuated on the same day, but the bus(es) transporting the 130 bedridden patients arrived on March 14th and 15th.

jim hardy

Dec24-11, 09:34 AM

It is clearcut. Nuke guys going to have to learn a new skill.

It is clearcut. Mankind's gonna have to reduce his numbers.

steve olsen

Dec24-11, 02:31 PM

It is clearcut. Mankind's gonna have to reduce his numbers.
Yeah, I think you are right, as much as the big Govs want a larger taxable base (more people) at some point "sustainable" is going to apply to population, things didn't seem quite so crazy at 4 Billion people.

It is amazing that, that type of discussion is rarely heard. too much fiat money, and too much humans, chasing increasingly limited supplies in an increasingly polluted environment.

nikkkom

Dec24-11, 03:11 PM

Yeah, I think you are right, as much as the big Govs want a larger taxable base (more people) at some point "sustainable" is going to apply to population, things didn't seem quite so crazy at 4 Billion people.

More people not only generate more tax money, they also consume more tax money.

I don't see any particular increase of "craziness" since we went from 4bn to 7bn. Moreover, growth seems to be leveling off.

It is amazing that, that type of discussion is rarely heard. too much fiat money, and too much humans, chasing increasingly limited supplies in an increasingly polluted environment.

I don't see pollution increase. The emission regulations are getting tighter, monitoring becomes more thorough and accessible.

And finally, this particular branch of discussion is going in an off-topic direction.

steve olsen

Dec24-11, 03:43 PM

More people not only generate more tax money, they also consume more tax money.

I don't see any particular increase of "craziness" since we went from 4bn to 7bn. Moreover, growth seems to be leveling off.

I don't see pollution increase. The emission regulations are getting tighter, monitoring becomes more thorough and accessible.

And finally, this particular branch of discussion is going in an off-topic direction.
Pollution in China
http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/2009/10/pollution-in-china.html

I don't see any particular increase of "craziness" since we went from 4bn to 7bn. Moreover, growth seems to be leveling off.

Uh, try to open a NYT, or a UK newspaper or online resource. If you don't recognize a clear cut increase in craziness, then I just don't know what to say. Nothing is more clear, we have entered a multi-century cycle top in which London is burning, OWS, governments are overthrown, disparity in wealth has never been higher, the constitution has been raped and thrown in the mud. ETC.

These are all relevant to discussions on nuclear energy and it's role in feeding and ever increase Demand for power to run more air-conditioners, in the midst of incredible governmental capture and play out of human greed. Nothing happens in a vacuum, all is one, and we are set-up for a Whoopin'

nikkkom

Dec24-11, 06:55 PM

Pollution in China
http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/2009/10/pollution-in-china.html

China is catching up to the West. West also went though the period of pollution increase, and then fixed the problem by paying attention to emissions. China will (hopefully) do the same.

I don't see any particular increase of "craziness" since we went from 4bn to 7bn. Moreover, growth seems to be leveling off.

Uh, try to open a NYT, or a UK newspaper or online resource. If you don't recognize a clear cut increase in craziness, then I just don't know what to say. Nothing is more clear, we have entered a multi-century cycle top in which London is burning, OWS, governments are overthrown, disparity in wealth has never been higher, the constitution has been raped and thrown in the mud. ETC.

London never experienced riots before? Really?
OWS is a classic case of people executing their democratic right to peacefully protest (even though I mostly disagree with them). What's the problem?
Governments are overthrown? You mean, Arabic distatorships are overthrown? Why is that bad?

Disparity in wealth has never been higher? Do you remember that SLAVERY was widespread on this planed not so long ago? How about comparing to THAT level of disparity in wealth?

steve olsen

Dec24-11, 07:04 PM

China is catching up to the West. West also went though the period of pollution increase, and then fixed the problem by paying attention to emissions. China will (hopefully) do the same.

London never experienced riots before? Really?
OWS is a classic case of people executing their democratic right to peacefully protest (even though I mostly disagree with them). What's the problem?
Governments are overthrown? You mean, Arabic distatorships are overthrown? Why is that bad?

Disparity in wealth has never been higher? Do you remember that SLAVERY was widespread on this planed not so long ago? How about comparing to THAT level of disparity in wealth?
We are at a major turning point, our ability to recognize a sea change will lead to good, OK, bad, or disaster. We are pointed toward disaster.

clancy688

Dec26-11, 10:19 AM

Shutdown leaves Japan with six nuclear reactors up

TOKYO -(MarketWatch)- Kyushu Electric Power Co. said Monday that it shut the No. 4 reactor at its Genkai nuclear power station on Japan's western island of Kyushu for planned maintenance.

With the closure, only six of Japan's 54 reactors remain in operation.

-- Kyushu Electric shuts a reactor for maintenance, leaving Japan with only six reactors in operation

-- Japan's power supply may tighten further, with three more reactors going offline in January

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shutdown-leaves-japan-with-six-nuclear-reactors-up-2011-12-25

One third of their power generation gone. And they are still able to meet the basic requirements of their civilization.
In my opinion that's a pretty strong argument against all those "without nuclear power there'll be blackouts all over the place!" comments.

Are they importing electricity from Korea or Russia? Is that even possible? You'd probably need a couple of HVDC lines.
And if they are not importing, how are they able to cope with that loss of power? I didn't hear anything about new rolling blackouts or reduced lighting in Tokio.

steve olsen

Dec26-11, 01:09 PM

Shutdown leaves Japan with six nuclear reactors up

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shutdown-leaves-japan-with-six-nuclear-reactors-up-2011-12-25

One third of their power generation gone. And they are still able to meet the basic requirements of their civilization.
In my opinion that's a pretty strong argument against all those "without nuclear power there'll be blackouts all over the place!" comments.

Are they importing electricity from Korea or Russia? Is that even possible? You'd probably need a couple of HVDC lines.
And if they are not importing, how are they able to cope with that loss of power? I didn't hear anything about new rolling blackouts or reduced lighting in Tokio.
I have famiily in Japan, there are heavy lighting reductions, everywhere, in the subways 50% delamping, and curtailed use of aircon higher setpoints.....BUT, it is not that bad, just an inconvenience, not a disastrous lack of power. Also, not good, but economic activity is down

They are running only 1/9 th of their reactors, they are not buying power across ocean

jim hardy

Dec26-11, 03:57 PM

when it's that tight, an unplanned outage at one plant is likely to cause real rolling blackouts.

if you hear of "voltage reduction" , things are getting desperate for the utility.

Gary7

Dec26-11, 03:58 PM

Japan is increasing coal-based power generation (coal sourced mostly from Australia, but some from China), and I have no doubt that Japan is increasing petroleum consumption to compensate for loss of nearly 20% of their electricity-generating capacity. This is one of the reasons why the price of oil has remained stubbornly high despite a massive global economic slowdown.

These are not without consequences. The negative effects of burning coal are well understood, and increased reliance on oil will cause even more rapid depletion of already depleted oil reserves (not to mention increased dependence on atavistic, tribal dictatorships), bringing us closer to predicted disruptions due to peak oil.

The good side of this is that people are learning to live with less, and producers of consumer goods are developing ever more efficient appliances. Hopefully this will also spur Japan to establish a sort of "Manhattan Project" for renewable/green energy, whereby they can emerge nuclear-free and less reliant on oil producing regimes. But in the short term, there are threats of power shortages, and Japan is bringing decomissioned coal-fired plants back online. You can check daily projected power consumption at this site

http://www.tepco.co.jp/forecast/index-j.html

Gary 7 (from Tokyo)

steve olsen

Dec26-11, 04:13 PM

when it's that tight, an unplanned outage at one plant is likely to cause real rolling blackouts.

if you hear of "voltage reduction" , things are getting desperate for the utility.
Right, no idea what kind of rolling reserve they are able to keep on hand.

steve olsen

Dec26-11, 04:14 PM

tsutsuji

Dec28-11, 08:11 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111228/0910_gikai.html Fukushima prefecture assembly passed a motion requesting Goshi Hosono to retract his statement saying the accident itself had been "brought under control". On 16 December he said: "as the reactors have come to "cold shutdown", the accident itself has been brought under control". The motion will be presented to Prime Minister Noda and Industry minister Edano.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111228/0910_gijiroku.html NHK requested the public release of the conference minutes of the accident response headquarters that was set up on March 15 between the government and Tepco in Tepco's Tokyo main office. But there isn't any. The NISA said: "as it was meant as an information sharing measure, no conference minutes were taken, nor any sound record". According to a specialist, this will hinder the study and the learning of the lessons from this accident.

zapperzero

Dec28-11, 09:14 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111228/0910_gijiroku.html no conference minutes were taken, nor any sound record"

that's very convenient, is it not? We will probably get at something like the truth from the memoirs of those involved - if we live that long.

tsutsuji

Dec29-11, 08:50 PM

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111227003729.htm[English] "NISA 'powerless to handle severe accident' / Interim report: Agency merely urged TEPCO to provide information, failed to control situation"

tsutsuji

Dec30-11, 10:32 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/editorial/news/20111227p2a00m0na002000c.html [English] "Editorial: More detailed information needed in final report on nuclear crisis" "The interim report [...] should clarify why these entities [NISA, etc...] have become so incompetent". "The failure to clarify the subjects of sentences and vague wording obscured the essence of the report."

clancy688

Jan3-12, 05:07 PM

I think that fits here quite well:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/

Do the Math
Using physics and estimation to assess energy, growth, options—by Tom Murphy

zapperzero

Jan12-12, 10:33 AM

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=fukushima&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0

look at the distribution by countries
Fukushima was a very big deal... in Germany

zapperzero

Jan12-12, 10:41 AM

J-gov to push for more food exports
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120110006217.htm

zapperzero

Jan12-12, 10:46 AM

http://www.shimbun.denki.or.jp/en/news/20120111_02.html
"The Japanese government intends to limit the service life of nuclear power plants in Japan to 40 years."
In other news, choco-rations increase to 40 grams.
Was it not 40 years before?

clancy688

Jan12-12, 11:02 AM

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=fukushima&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0

look at the distribution by countries
Fukushima was a very big deal... in Germany

Fixed: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=fukushima,+%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0

Scroll down and compare the "Regions" chart.

Of course you don't get many results in Japan. Japanese people are probably searching for "
福島" and not for "fukushima". ;)

zapperzero

Jan12-12, 11:05 AM

Fixed: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=fukushima,+%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0

Scroll down and compare the "Regions" chart.

Of course you don't get many results in Japan. Japanese people are probably searching for "
福島" and not for "fukushima". ;)

Certainly. I meant that it seems to have been a much bigger deal in Germany than in France, the UK or the US. Which is, to me, rather surprising. Comparing the two in Google trends shows the Japanese version had almost equal search volume to the latin one.

clancy688

Jan12-12, 12:04 PM

German people are and have always been very "sensitive" (the term used in other, more pro-nuke countries is "hysterical") towards nuclear power.
Then we got our share of the Chernobyl fallout, which's certainly nothing compared to Belarus or the Ukraine, but at that time, we were probably one of the closest affected democratic countries. Kids were not allowed to play outside, contaminated food... it's probably not so different to what's going on in many Japanese prefectures.
That single nuclear accident created a whole generation of anti-nuclear people, most of which are still living today. Every time a CASTOR (German acronym for dry cask storage) rolled through Germany, tens of thousands of people demonstrated against nuclear power plants.
Our fourth-biggest (now third-biggest, thanks to Fukushima) political party, The Greens, formed itself to a big part from the anti-nuclear-movement.

That's the first half of why Fukushima was such a big deal in Germany. The second half is all about timing:

In 2000, the then governing coalition of SPD (socialists) and Greens decided a phase out of nuclear power, an accompanying bill was passed in 2002. From January 2000 on, nuclear power plants were only allowed to produce further 2.62 million GWh. Based on that agreement, the last NPP was expected to go offline in 2021

In fall 2010, the since fall 2009 governing coalition of CDU (christian conservatives) and FDP (liberals) added to the above mentioned 2.62 million GWh another 1.8 million GWh. That's basically 12 more years of operation. Needless to say that the opposition (Greens, SPD, leftists) was furious. As well as a big chunk of the German citizens.
Governments are elected for four years, so with another three years in power, they probably calculated on the short memory of the voters.
But then, just half a year later, Fukushima blew up right into their faces. Right when there were three major elections only two weeks away. So they panicked and did one of the most stupidest things I've ever seen in my life.
It took them not even a WEEK to phase out the phase out of the phase out, removing their lifetime extension of 2010 and shutting down the seven oldest NPPs because of "safety concerns". I don't know what may have changed in those six months (except three meltdowns of course), but back in fall 2010 those plants were "perfectly safe". I can't imagine anything worse to do if you don't want to lose your credibility. Except declaring outright that one can't trust you.
Apparently, many Germans had the same idea, and then the obvious happened. Especially the FDP totally lost in all those elections, not even gaining enough votes to secure seats in those three state parliaments, while the Greens even doubled their share of the votes in one of the most conservative states (Baden-Württemberg).

In Germany, Fukushima wasn't just a major disaster. It actively changed the political landscape of our whole country.

Yamanote

Jan12-12, 02:18 PM

It took them not even a WEEK to phase out the phase out of the phase out, removing their lifetime extension of 2010 and shutting down the seven oldest NPPs because of "safety concerns".

I followed these discussions and I found them ridiculous too.

Anyway, I remember that day In April 1986, as if it was yesterday. I looked up to the sky and watched black clouds coming from the east, minutes later it began to rain and we received all the fancy stuff from Chernobyl...
Taking Wikipedia as a source, the contamination with Cs137 from Chernbobyl in Austria was within a range of 18,7 kBq/m² to 200 kBq/m².

Therefore I a) understand the situation of the people in Japan and b) reserve the right for me to have an ambivalent opinion about nuclear energy and the way how people deal with it.

nikkkom

Jan12-12, 07:51 PM

Anyway, I remember that day In April 1986, as if it was yesterday. I looked up to the sky and watched black clouds coming from the east, minutes later it began to rain and we received all the fancy stuff from Chernobyl...
Taking Wikipedia as a source, the contamination with Cs137 from Chernbobyl in Austria was within a range of 18,7 kBq/m² to 200 kBq/m².

Way too high numbers.

All areas with more than one Curie per km^2 (which is 37 kBq/m^2) are inside Ukraine, Belorus and Russia. See, for example, this map:

http://astroarts.punt.nl/upload/Kernenergie/Chernobyl_disaster,_26_april_1986,_1.23_uur_Moskou _tijd,_radioactieve_zones_78.jpg

I have a much bigger map with data for December 1989 and it shows about the same: some isolated 1 Curie spots almost reached Latvia and Moldova, but I highly doubt Austria had anything close to that. Maybe in the very first days, with short-lived stuff like Iodine...

EDIT: Looks like I'm wrong. Austria indeed has a "honor" to have a patch of ~40-100 kBq/m^2. See here:

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/radiation-from-chernobyl

Jim Lagerfeld

Jan13-12, 03:00 AM

A better map of Austria:
http://www.progettohumus.it/include/chernobyl/mappe/europa/PLATE10.PDF

And detailed maps for the rest of Europe if you are interested:
http://www.progettohumus.it/chernobyl.php?name=mappe2

Not sure the best way to go about making comparisons with the Japanese maps as the European ones only ever seem to show CS-137, and I also saw it said somewhere that the ratio of CS134 to 137 was quite different between the two accidents?

Borek

Jan13-12, 03:04 AM

http://astroarts.punt.nl/upload/Kernenergie/Chernobyl_disaster,_26_april_1986,_1.23_uur_Moskou _tijd,_radioactieve_zones_78.jpg

Image doesn't show.

nikkkom

Jan13-12, 03:17 AM

Not sure the best way to go about making comparisons with the Japanese maps as the European ones only ever seem to show CS-137, and I also saw it said somewhere that the ratio of CS134 to 137 was quite different between the two accidents?

Very roughly, initially the dose from both isotopes is about the same. Cs-134 has lower fission yield, but is more active than Cs-137.

By now, Chernobyl's Cs-134 is gone - almost all has decayed.

Jim Lagerfeld

Jan13-12, 03:34 AM

Very roughly, initially the dose from both isotopes is about the same. Cs-134 has lower fission yield, but is more active than Cs-137.

By now, Chernobyl's Cs-134 is gone - almost all has decayed.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I mean that I have read that the initial ratio differed between the two accidents. 0.5 or 0.6 to 1 Cs-134:Cs-137 in Chernobyl, closer to 1:1 in Fukushima.

This paper gives the 0.6 :1 value: http://www.irpa.net/irpa7/cdrom/VOL.3/S3_146.PDF

But the Tokyo figures are much closer to 1:1 in the immediate aftermath
http://monitoring.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/monitoring/f-past_data.html

tsutsuji

Jan13-12, 01:17 PM

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201112/16kaiken_e.html The English translation of Prime minister Noda's 16 December "cold shutdown" press conference is now available.

Yamanote

Jan13-12, 02:03 PM

Thanks for the information, especially to Jim!

It would be interesting to compare this with a current contamination map of Japan, but I seem to be too stupid to find one...

Sorai

Jan13-12, 04:41 PM

Thanks for the information, especially to Jim!

It would be interesting to compare this with a current contamination map of Japan, but I seem to be too stupid to find one...

The ones that have been translated are here:

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_MEXT_DOE_airborne_m onitoring/

And then there is this one, but it's in Japanese:

http://ramap.jaea.go.jp/map/map.html

Yamanote

Jan13-12, 05:00 PM

Thanks again, great forum!

Although I am checking the MEXT page regularly, I missed this part completely.

clancy688

Jan15-12, 07:00 AM

Map for Cs-137 deposition in Germany. The fallout in southern Germany is not so different to the Fukushima fallout southeast of Fukushima prefecture (is that Gunma and Tochigi prefecture?).

http://www.environmental-studies.de/rad_1.1.jpg

(Btw: Wouldn't this particular discussion fit better in the "contamination and consequences" thread?)

Yamanote

Jan15-12, 02:20 PM

(Btw: Wouldn't this particular discussion fit better in the "contamination and consequences" thread?)

I agree. Comparing the discussions about Fukushima in different countries turned into a comparison about contamination somehow. Sorry for that.

PS: South of Fukushima prefecture are Ibaraki, Tochigi and Gunma (Ibaraki is at the coast, Gunma is in the center and Tochigi is between them).

zapperzero

Jan16-12, 08:55 AM

Dunno what thread this should go into. Perhaps "contamination and consequences"? Maybe "performance"?

Anyway. TEPCO is threatened with a suit for damages by its own shareholders. In response, it has issued a document stating that board members do not hold any responsibility for the disaster and its aftermath:

"The board members had appropriately considered and implemented anti-tsunami measures based on government instructions and approvals, [...]The accident is attributable to the tsunami waves that were far higher than assumed for the measures."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tepco-board-members-not-responsible-for-fukushima-2012-01-16

disgusting, but expected.

Yamanote

Jan18-12, 12:15 PM

disgusting, but expected.

I fully agree with you. But I don't consider this as a typical Japanese or Tepco issue, it's more an issue of human beings in general and would happen in a very similar way everywhere in the world. Unfortunately...

Caniche

Jan18-12, 03:57 PM

I fully agree with you. But I don't consider this as a typical Japanese or Tepco issue, it's more an issue of human beings in general and would happen in a very similar way everywhere in the world. Unfortunately...

"human beings in general":smile:More like " oops there goes my performance related bonus" Unless I can shift this ****:biggrin:

tsutsuji

Jan23-12, 09:11 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111228/0910_gijiroku.html NHK requested the public release of the conference minutes of the accident response headquarters that was set up on March 15 between the government and Tepco in Tepco's Tokyo main office. But there isn't any. The NISA said: "as it was meant as an information sharing measure, no conference minutes were taken, nor any sound record". According to a specialist, this will hinder the study and the learning of the lessons from this accident.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120123/1410_gijiroku.html Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said that he is studying how the conference minutes of the accident response headquarters (whose chairman is the Prime Minister) can be reconstituted, as they are a requirement of the National Archive Law.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120122p2g00m0dm066000c.html "residents within a radius of 170 kilometers or more of the plant would be forced to move out, while those within a radius of 250 km of the plant, including Tokyo, would be allowed to leave if they wish" : government worst case scenario dated March 25, 2011.

Caniche

Jan23-12, 05:17 PM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120123/1410_gijiroku.html Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said that he is studying how the conference minutes of the accident response headquarters (whose chairman is the Prime Minister) can be reconstituted, as they are a requirement of the National Archive Law.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120122p2g00m0dm066000c.html "residents within a radius of 170 kilometers or more of the plant would be forced to move out, while those within a radius of 250 km of the plant, including Tokyo, would be allowed to leave if they wish" : government worst case scenario dated March 25, 2011.

Worth a second look and more

zapperzero

Jan24-12, 04:29 AM

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120124p2g00m0dm144000c.html
Japanese industry minister Yukio Edano on Tuesday apologized for the government's failure to take minutes of meetings of a taskforce dealing with the Fukushima nuclear crisis and said that he has instructed the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency to compile them soon based on notes taken by meeting attendees

How very convenient.

Yamanote

Jan25-12, 05:10 PM

Worth a second look and more

Indeed, looks like a kind of "Three Wise Monkeys" syndrome:
"It contained such shocking content that we decided to treat it as if it never existed," a senior government official said.

etudiant

Jan26-12, 06:31 PM

"human beings in general":smile:More like " oops there goes my performance related bonus" Unless I can shift this ****:biggrin:

I think that is not right.
The reality is that Japan had a disaster which could not be averted or mitigated in any meaningful way.
Sure, they could have evacuated Tokyo... where to and for how long?? At what cost in human lives and ruined communities?

It seems to me that Japan has managed this debacle rather well, the country is functioning again, after the worst double whammy in a millenium and the problems are really pretty minimal, at most claimed to be a few percent increase in the eventual cancer rate in a society where cancer is eventually found in half the population already.
Would we do as well if the Ramapo fault caused a serious problem with the Indian Point reactors just up the river from NYC?

zapperzero

Jan27-12, 04:46 AM

Sure, they could have evacuated Tokyo... where to and for how long?? At what cost in human lives and ruined communities?
It seems to me that Japan has managed this debacle rather well,

You're kinda sorta missing the point here. It could very well have become necessary to evacuate Tokyo. Upon learning this fact, the J-gov promptly buried it. THEY DID NOTHING.

Compare and contrast:

There was about a company-size element of CBIRF (IRF-A) sent to Tokyo to cover the evacuation of the US embassy, should it become necessary. It was withdrawn (to a US army base in Japan iirc), then sent again, then withdrawn again. They never set foot in Fukushima, because, regardless of what you read on the news, those guys are not aid workers; they are marines, there to shoot people and break things. Families of military and diplomatic personnel were evacuated, private US citizens told in no uncertain terms to evacuate a huge area around the NPP, pack up and stick close to airports... the US was preparing for the worst case scenario.

What did the J-gov do to prepare for significant fallout in Tokyo and the Kanto region? For a country cut in half by a radioactive wasteland?

Sure, worst did not come to worst and the SFPs did not boil dry. But this is not proof of good management.

clancy688

Jan27-12, 11:01 AM

Sure, worst did not come to worst and the SFPs did not boil dry. But this is not proof of good management.

Well, perhaps some kind of advanced fatalism:

"In the worst case, we're done for. Not anything we could do to manage THIS. Therefore we won't waste our time with preparing for an emergency which can't be prepared for."

zapperzero

Jan27-12, 11:46 AM

Well, perhaps some kind of advanced fatalism:

"In the worst case, we're done for. Not anything we could do to manage THIS. Therefore we won't waste our time with preparing for an emergency which can't be prepared for."

I wouldn't want my government thinking like that.

etudiant

Jan27-12, 12:25 PM

You're kinda sorta missing the point here. It could very well have become necessary to evacuate Tokyo. Upon learning this fact, the J-gov promptly buried it. THEY DID NOTHING.

Compare and contrast:

There was about a company-size element of CBIRF (IRF-A) sent to Tokyo to cover the evacuation of the US embassy, should it become necessary. It was withdrawn (to a US army base in Japan iirc), then sent again, then withdrawn again. They never set foot in Fukushima, because, regardless of what you read on the news, those guys are not aid workers; they are marines, there to shoot people and break things. Families of military and diplomatic personnel were evacuated, private US citizens told in no uncertain terms to evacuate a huge area around the NPP, pack up and stick close to airports... the US was preparing for the worst case scenario.

What did the J-gov do to prepare for significant fallout in Tokyo and the Kanto region? For a country cut in half by a radioactive wasteland?

Sure, worst did not come to worst and the SFPs did not boil dry. But this is not proof of good management.

It is simply that even preparing for an evacuation during a crisis has massive bad consequences.
Any plan to evacuate would automatically spur individuals to act to front run the rush, with chaos not far behind. The US had the luxury of needing to deal with a relative handful of people, whereas the Japanese government had to weigh its actions knowing at least 30 million concerned citizens were watching everything it said or did.
I agree there should now be a more forceful set of emergency measures plans set up and practiced for Tokyo, if only because a large earthquake there seems a sure thing, but imho it invites a panic to start to plan for unprecedented actions in the midst of a disaster.

Yamanote

Jan27-12, 03:21 PM

I think that is not right.

I would relate the statement from Caniche more to what happened BEFORE the accident. Or better what DID NOT happen before the accident for some reason, especially the preparation with respect to flooding by a Tsunami.

And it is quite evident, that this risk was not addressed as it should have been. Maybe it was money TEPCO wanted to save, maybe it was just carelessness, I don't want to guess about the reasons and the outcome is always the same anyway. Once the damage is done, it is too late.

If you are the owner of an NPP, you have to ensure that
1.) the plant will not loose electric power supply
2.) if electric power is lost, the reactor cooling doesn't fail
3.) if it fails anyway, venting and freshwater injection can be accomplished

They were not prepared for this kind of accident accordingly and they failed in all these points, as the Tsunami knocked out the plant completely.

By the way, currently only three reactors are in service in Japan...

etudiant

Jan27-12, 03:45 PM

I would relate the statement from Caniche more to what happened BEFORE the accident. Or better what DID NOT happen before the accident for some reason, especially the preparation with respect to flooding by a Tsunami.

And it is quite evident, that this risk was not addressed as it should have been. Maybe it was money TEPCO wanted to save, maybe it was just carelessness, I don't want to guess about the reasons and the outcome is always the same anyway. Once the damage is done, it is too late.

By the way, currently only three reactors are in service in Japan...

Clearly there has been a reaction to this disaster, as the above statistic shows.
Logically one would expect much more of this, as I cannot imagine any Japanese political leader willing to be caught out this way again. How reform will be implemented however is apparently still a very unsettled question.
Unfortunately, the US press offers no insight into Japanese decision making. In fact, our press does not even know the topics under discussion, much less the alternatives being weighted.

Caniche

Jan27-12, 04:23 PM

I would relate the statement from Caniche more to what happened BEFORE the accident. Or better what DID NOT happen before the accident for some reason, especially the preparation with respect to flooding by a Tsunami.

And it is quite evident, that this risk was not addressed as it should have been. Maybe it was money TEPCO wanted to save, maybe it was just carelessness, I don't want to guess about the reasons and the outcome is always the same anyway. Once the damage is done, it is too late.

If you are the owner of an NPP, you have to ensure that
1.) the plant will not loose electric power supply
2.) if electric power is lost, the reactor cooling doesn't fail
3.) if it fails anyway, venting and freshwater injection can be accomplished

They were not prepared for this kind of accident accordingly and they failed in all these points, as the Tsunami knocked out the plant completely.

By the way, currently only three reactors are in service in Japan...

Have no fear ,I'm sure that next time,just like last time ,we will have learnt all the relevant lessons and the causes of disaster will be entirely new and totally unpredictable:redface:

etudiant

Jan27-12, 04:38 PM

Have no fear ,I'm sure that next time,just like last time ,we will have learnt all the relevant lessons and the causes of disaster will be entirely new and totally unpredictable:redface:

Just as in medicine, where miracle drugs produce miracle bugs.
It is always the problem you did not anticipate that gets you. That said, it is disappointing that TEPCO did not adequately address even the anticipated problems.

jim hardy

Jan27-12, 05:38 PM

Progress has come generally from painful lessons.
Engineering magazines from 1880's are full of bridge collapses and boiler explosions.

Technology gets better.

Human Nature probably does too..

Somebody decided Titanic's watertight doors needn't go all way to main deck despite her intended use, plying icy waters at high speed..

a hundred years later somebody decided those electrical rooms in the basement didnt need watertight doors despite new findings about local tidal waves.

Memo to Western Civilization: we're old enough to know better.

Caniche

Jan30-12, 02:38 PM

Just as in medicine, where miracle drugs produce miracle bugs.
It is always the problem you did not anticipate that gets you. That said, it is disappointing that TEPCO did not adequately address even the anticipated problems.
Hang about, failure to anticipate a statistically predictable regular occurrence is just stoopid,which is more than disappointing . I mean,the old guard even stuck marked rocks at the maximum height of previous inundations. "How were we to know?" "look there's a stone that tell's you"

zapperzero

Feb13-12, 07:34 AM

TEPCO posts losses equal to already received gov't bailout, asks gov't for more money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/tepco-widens-loss-forecast-as-fukushima-costs-trigger-8-9-billion-of-aid.html

zapperzero

Feb15-12, 07:26 AM

I'll just leave this here, as I think the "management and government performance" thread kinda died and I don't feel like bumping it.

http://www.japan-cities.com/fukushima/fukushima-city/greeting-mayor-fukushima-city.html

tsutsuji

Feb18-12, 02:01 PM

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/20110316-866921/news/20120216-OYT1T01050.htm The Fukushima prefecture nuclear energy public relations organization has unanimously decided to dissolve. It was funded by Fukushima prefecture and 11 cities and towns. It published a magazine 4 times a year. They stopped their activity in March as their office is in the restricted zone in Ookuma town. They explain : "We have been doing public relations about nuclear safety, but with the Tokyo Electric Fukushima Daiichi plant accident, the prerequisite has collapsed".

LKofEnglish

Feb18-12, 06:00 PM

First time poster. Came over from a site called Zero Hedge. Saw a story about potential recriticality at FD and thought I would chime in here first as my only nuclear experience came from studying Chemistry in HS. My question is this: how can anyone really expect to improve the situation without their being some purpose or reason to trust those who inform us? I have more to add but I would curious to hear what you all think about "disclosure after a nuclear accident." thanks.

zapperzero

Feb19-12, 04:10 AM

My question is this: how can anyone really expect to improve the situation without their being some purpose or reason to trust those who inform us?

TEPCO has been doing a lot of heel-dragging, blame-shifting and general obfuscation.

But, the stuff that can be checked out by and large checks out - total radioactive release (source term) estimates they have published are consistent with (independently) observed contamination, for example. Results of the modeling TEPCO use to estimate core damage are also consistent with the observations and calculations others (including people on here) have made. Reported temperatures evolved as expected, by and large. And so on and so forth.

So, it would appear that whatever data is being made public can be trusted. That's not to say that everything that should be made public was or is.

LKofEnglish

Feb19-12, 08:49 PM

etudiant

Feb19-12, 10:48 PM

would you argue that Tepco has been this way all along? It seems fairly straightforward to call Tepco's response to the crisis as at best "evolving." Are their dangers of radioactive material spreading through the debris of the tsunami throughout the Pacific Ocean? Why isn't this patently obvious issue even being discussed? What about the possibility of recriticality? "Blaming the instruments" seems rather incredulous. How can one have poor instrumentation on the biggest industrial accident in human history? What about the disposal of nuclear waste into landfills in and around Tokyo Bay? Are these people insane? the list is so long as to beg the question "why are they hiding so much" and not "why does the data fit the image being portrayed." (as a point of reference i'm coming at this issue from the standpoint of a financial person trying to figure out what the Japanese currency is going to do as a result of this catastrophe. currently it is selling off dramatically.) i am here because folks like me are constantly in the need for "all the data" and not merely what we are told to think. is there anyone here who can make "best guesses" as to what they think is in fact going on? anyone here who can explain "what are the implications to recriticality"? what is the implication of radioactive flotsmam washing ashore the islands of Hawaii and the State's of Washington, Oregon and California even if only at the theoretical level?

The instrumentation deficiencies simply reflect that the reactors have experienced catastrophic damage and are sufficiently radioactive that new instruments could not be installed even with human sacrificial volunteer help.
The radioactive debris claims are pretty far fetched. The tsunami that washed the debris out to sea was over and done with by the time the plant blew up two days later.
The radiation contamination is real, but at levels found elsewhere on earth in areas people that people live in, in Iran, Brazil, India and parts of China. Getting frantic about burying the debris begs the question what other option exists?
With cancer the cause of death of over 40% of all Japanese, the accident will be difficult to see in the mortality statistics. However, the cleanup will be a $100 billion class dead weight on the Japanese economy.
Recriticality is a concern primarily because the site will take decades to clean up enough for the fuel to be removed. Only then will the situation be safe again.

nikkkom

Feb20-12, 05:48 AM

Yamanote

Feb20-12, 01:33 PM

Thanks nikkkom, not more to say here.

r-j

Feb20-12, 02:34 PM

Are their dangers of radioactive material spreading through the debris of the tsunami throughout the Pacific Ocean? Why isn't this patently obvious issue even being discussed?

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article23550

etudiant

Feb20-12, 02:52 PM

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article23550

Just to put these levels into perspective, bananas have about 130 Bq/kg, whereas this study notes the seawater is incrementally contaminated up to as much as 0.1 Bq/kg.
Note also that the Hawaii comment refers to the physical damage from large pieces of debris,
not to any putative radioactivity.
There has not been any reports that I've seen about any damage from these debris anywhere in the US.

Borek

Feb20-12, 03:19 PM

Not to mention fact that the title ("Fukushima radioactive water and tsunami debris spread in the Pacific Ocean") is misleading, as it it can suggest tsunami debris is radioactive as well.

r-j

Feb20-12, 04:54 PM

Maybe I am wrong, but even if all of the radioactivity from all the reactors spilled into the ocean, by the time it reached America it would be so diluted it wouldn't matter. Right?

seeyouaunty

Feb20-12, 07:36 PM

Maybe I am wrong, but even if all of the radioactivity from all the reactors spilled into the ocean, by the time it reached America it would be so diluted it wouldn't matter. Right?
Biological life has a habit of concentrating such things up through the food chain.

tsutsuji

Feb20-12, 08:41 PM

Maybe I am wrong, but even if all of the radioactivity from all the reactors spilled into the ocean, by the time it reached America it would be so diluted it wouldn't matter. Right?

In the following report http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN-NI-Impact_accident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_2610201 1.pdf (October 2011), the French research institute IRSN says that with 27 E15 Bq, the Fukushima sea release is the largest single event of radioactive sea release ever, in the history of mankind. When it will be fully, uniformly diluted into the Pacific Ocean, the Cesium 137 concentration in that ocean will be brought to 0.004 Bq/l . This will be twice the value before the Fukushima accident : 0.002 Bq/l which was caused by the atmospheric atomic weapons tests in the Pacific Ocean in the 1960s. Both values are much lower than the concentration of Potassium 40, a natural radioactive substance, which is 12 Bq/l .

According to Federal Guidance Report No. 11 - Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion EPA-520/1-88-020 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1988) (http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/federal/520-1-88-020.pdf) table 2.2 pages 166 and 156, the ingestion dose coefficients of cesium 137 and potassium 40 are respectively 1.35 E-8 Sv/Bq and 5.02 E-9 Sv/Bq. This means that one Becquerel of cesium 137 is 13.5/5= 2.7 times more harmful than one Becquerel of potassium 40 when ingested by a human being.

But 2.7 times 0.004 is still much lower [12/(0.004*2.7)= 1110 times lower ] than 12.

There is also Cesium 134, and it is more harmful (1.98 E-8 Sv/Bq) when ingested, but its quantity was, roughly speaking about the same as Cs 137, and it will decrease with time more quickly than Cs 137 because its half life is about 2 years instead of 30 years for Cs-137.

This half life of 30 years also means that 30 years ago, in 1982, if the IRSN is correct, the Cesium 137 concentration in the Pacific Ocean was 0.002 * 2 = 0.004 Bq/l . So the Pacific Ocean in the 1970s was probably worse than what is expected as a result of Fukushima after full dilution.

By the way, I found a funny comic about how science is reported in the media : http://www.translucid.ca/site/2009/05/22/phd-comics-explaining-the-science-news-cycle/

etudiant

Feb20-12, 08:50 PM

Biological life has a habit of concentrating such things up through the food chain.

The oceans have much more of the longer lived radiactive materials than humans have.
However, relatively short lived species such as cesium 137 are man made and so they sharply increase the ocean burden of that specific isotope.
The prospect of widespread seafood contamination from Fukushima cesium is nevertheless minimal, simply because the ocean potassium content, about 4 parts per 10,000 of sea water, is enough to swamp the available cesium. Cesium is not preferentially absorbed by the body for mammals or fishes afaik, although there are some fungi that do show a preference for it. Moreover, the body's potassium is in continued flux, so that the half life of absorbed potassium or cesium is about 90 days. The material is not preferentially absorbed or concentrated, unlike iodine for example.

Astronuc

Feb28-12, 06:50 PM

Investigative reporter Dan Edge wanted to find out what it was like for the workers who were inside the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant when the crisis began. His new Frontline documentary chronicles what happened to those plant engineers, as well as what happened to the small corps of workers who entered the power plant in the days after the disaster.
Freshair - http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=2-28-2012
Frontline -http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/japans-nuclear-meltdown/

Some of the technical details are a bit muddled, but nevertheless it is a rather important narrative.

tsutsuji

Mar8-12, 05:29 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120307/0920yoken.html At a symposium in Washington about the Fukushima Daichi accident, Commissioner Apostolakis said "the consequences of a tsunami could have been predicted". The symposium organiser, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, is also releasing a report on "Why Fukushima was preventable", saying that the analysis of historical tsunamis was not sufficient and that in contrast with the measures taken in Europe after the French NPP flooding and blackout of 1999 or in the US after the 11 September 2001 attacks, Japan was negligent to take countermeasures against blackout.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/one-year-on-assessing-fukushima-s-impact/9iid Symposium

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/fukushima.pdf report: James M. Acton and Mark Hibbs, "Why Fukushima was preventable"

Here are my impressions after reading that report :

There are a few obscure statements (in note 5 page 33, they imply that the HPCI "did require electricity" ; page 10 "the revised design-basis tsunami was now 1.4 meters above the seawater pumps" is contradicted by the IAEA mission report which mentions that the seawater pumps had been retrofitted). Perhaps this is inevitable when one summarizes a complex event in a few pages.

Saying on page 10: "As a result, we believe it would be unfair to apportion significant blame for the accident on the actions the operators took (or failed to take) after the tsunami, as the official investigation committee has done", Acton and Hibbs attack and dismiss the Japanese Government's investigation committee's interim report, although they have probably not read it. If they had read it, they would have provided an internet link to the full report rather than to the English summary. The official investigation committee drew its conclusions from the analysis of the facts mentioned in the report. It seems that Acton and Hibbs want to dismiss the Tepco-unfriendly conclusions of the report regardless what the uncomfortable facts might be. Criticizing Tepco must be a sort of taboo in their mind.

The demonstration that the whole world is so much better protected against severe accident than Japan seems to be a little far fetched. That two or 3 plants in such or such country are better protected than Fukushima Daiichi does not mean that those countries as a whole are better than Japan as a whole. After all, Tokai Daini, Fukushima Daini, or Onagawa etc... resisted the tsunami.

The report provides also plenty of examples of weaknesses in countries different from Japan "In many plants in the United States, one expert said, the on-site AC power supply is not stronger than that at Fukushima Daiichi" (page 19). Most French plants lack an alternative heat sink (page 21).

What I disagree most is the way the report flatters the IAEA and extols its supposed virtues.

Page 24: "Nonetheless, given Japan’s participation in the [IAEA tsunami safety] project, it should have been well aware of how far its own practice was lagging behind international standards, and this should have prompted remedial actions." I think this can be understood the other way round. The IAEA should have been aware that Japan was lagging behind, and the IAEA should have distanced itself from Japan and from Tepco. During all these years the IAEA's attitude toward Japan was an attitude of approval. Or where, during all these year, do we find instances of IAEA disapproving Japan and disapproving Tepco ? Isn't the present IAEA president a Japanese ? If Japan was such a bad country, the IAEA should not have elected a Japanese as its president. And the IAEA should not have promoted the November 24-26, 2010 Kashiwazaki international symposium on seismic safety where Tepco's Makoto Takao says in his presentation on "Tsunami Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan" http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf page 14 "Fukushima Daiichi NPS : we assessed and confirmed the safety of the nuclear plants based on the JSCE method which was published in 2002". If the IAEA had been the paragon of tsunami safety Acton and Hibbs claim it was, the IAEA should have said "This is not good science. We don't want to have anything to do with that. We repudiate the kind of symposium where such approaches can be presented in guise of good science". Instead of that, we find on the IAEA's website at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2009/lookahead2010.html : "An International Workshop on Seismic Safety of Nuclear Installations will be held in Kashiwazaki in Japan from 17 to 19 March 2010. It is being organised by the IAEA and the International Seismic Safety Centre (ISSC) in co-operation with the IAEA Asia Nuclear Safety Network (ANSN)".

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/pictures/images/02opening-001.jpg

Look at the flower bunch. Isn't it cute ? During all these years, the IAEA was in love with Tepco, giving or receiving flowers to it or from it.

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/pictures/images/04b-001.jpg

See also Yoko Iwabuchi's presentation http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-10.pdf about an historical database of tsunamis from 1596 to 2003. This leaves the Jogan tsunami of 869 out.　[1]

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/pictures/images/04b-012.jpg
K. Satake was in the room. What was he thinking ?

(All presentations and pictures are available at http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/content.html )
[1] http://tsunami3.civil.tohoku.ac.jp/ Japan Tsunami Trace Database

zapperzero

Mar8-12, 07:43 AM

What I disagree most is the way the report flatters the IAEA and extols its supposed virtues.

Page 24: "Nonetheless, given Japan’s participation in the [IAEA tsunami safety] project, it should have been well aware of how far its own practice was lagging behind international standards, and this should have prompted remedial actions." I think this can be understood the other way round. The IAEA should have been aware that Japan was lagging behind, and the IAEA should have distanced itself from Japan and from Tepco. During all these years the IAEA's attitude toward Japan was an attitude of approval. Or where, during all these year, do we find instances of IAEA disapproving Japan and disapproving Tepco ? Isn't the present IAEA president a Japanese ? If Japan was such a bad country, the IAEA should not have elected a Japanese as its president. And the IAEA should not have promoted the November 24-26, 2010 Kashiwazaki international symposium on seismic safety where Tepco's Makoto Takao says in his presentation on "Tsunami Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan" http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf page 14 "Fukushima Daiichi NPS : we assessed and confirmed the safety of the nuclear plants based on the JSCE method which was published in 2002". If the IAEA had been the paragon of tsunami safety Acton and Hibbs claim it was, the IAEA should have said "This is not good science. We don't want to have anything to do with that. We repudiate the kind of symposium where such approaches can be presented in guise of good science". Instead of that, we find on the IAEA's website at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2009/lookahead2010.html : "An International Workshop on Seismic Safety of Nuclear Installations will be held in Kashiwazaki in Japan from 17 to 19 March 2010. It is being organised by the IAEA and the International Seismic Safety Centre (ISSC) in co-operation with the IAEA Asia Nuclear Safety Network (ANSN)".

You make a valid and valuable argument. My question to you and the rest of the participants to this discussion is: how to get from being right to doing right? I am quite sure that some political changes are in order (also I think many others here think the same). How can we best start making these changes happen?

I am sure that publicizing the issue, as is already being done here and in a few other places, is a good start. What more can be done?

nikkkom

Mar8-12, 08:29 AM

You make a valid and valuable argument. My question to you and the rest of the participants to this discussion is: how to get from being right to doing right? I am quite sure that some political changes are in order (also I think many others here think the same). How can we best start making these changes happen?

I am sure that publicizing the issue, as is already being done here and in a few other places, is a good start. What more can be done?

Writing more about the need to upgrade safety of NPPs. All aspects of it: tsunami protection. EDG placement. Flood protection for electrical systems. Addition of totally passive cooling systems. Make personnel know how to use it. Air-mobile rapid response teams for nuclear disasters.

I think it's best if the written material will not focus exclusively on whom to blame, but be more focused on what needs to be done.

If you personally can't write something like this, I'm sure Japan has no dearth of talented journalists.

zapperzero

Mar8-12, 08:31 AM

http://fukushima.ans.org/

Supposedly has a report on fukushima that I cannot (yet?) access for reason of it being password-protected. Can anyone get to it?

zapperzero

Mar8-12, 08:31 AM

Writing more about the need to upgrade safety of NPPs. All aspects of it: tsunami protection. EDG placement. Flood protection for electrical systems. Addition of totally passive cooling systems. Make personnel know how to use it. Air-mobile rapid response teams for nuclear disasters.

I think it's best if the written material will not focus exclusively on whom to blame, but be more focused on what needs to be done.

If you personally can't write something like this, I'm sure Japan has no dearth of talented journalists.

I'm sure writing about it in newspapers isn't the be all end all of political action. Any other ideas?

nikkkom

Mar8-12, 08:38 AM

I'm sure writing about it in newspapers isn't the be all end all of political action. Any other ideas?

Well, Japan is a democratic country. People can protest. They can demand changes in how electricity generation industry is organized, and its unhealthy links with top echelons of politics.

I usually am not very supportive of protesters if they don't have a well-articulated proposal how to make things better. It's easy to be unhappy about something - any kindergarten child can demonstrate that.

Formulating a viable plan how to fix/improve the system is much harder, but it will show people that you are not from kindergarten, that you are a serious and thinking individual, and will likely bring you more supporters. Even some from the opposing camp may actually agree with parts of your proposal, and not fight against you.

zapperzero

Mar8-12, 08:53 AM

Well, Japan is a democratic country. People can protest. They can demand changes in how electricity generation industry is organized, and its unhealthy links with top echelons of politics.

I usually am not very supportive of protesters if they don't have a well-articulated proposal how to make things better. It's easy to be unhappy about something - any kindergarten child can demonstrate that.

Formulating a viable plan how to fix/improve the system is much harder, but it will show people that you are not from kindergarten, that you are a serious and thinking individual, and will likely bring you more supporters. Even some from the opposing camp may actually agree with parts of your proposal, and not fight against you.

I am sure the same Japanese government that has unilaterally and without consulting the citizenry chosen to both allow TEPCO to hike rates AND to bail them out to the tune of 500 million dollars so far is going to be really amenable to dialogue and implementing well-formulated plans. Wait, I am not.

Also, is it the sole responsibility of citizens of Japan to make sure that no GE Mark 1 BWRs ever go poof again?

Astronuc

Mar10-12, 06:55 AM

Insiders from the country's nuclear industry described a culture in which regulators looked the other way while the industry put a higher priority on promoting nuclear energy than protecting public safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/world/asia/critics-say-japan-ignored-warnings-of-nuclear-disaster.html

That's a fair assessment.

. . . .
One of those whose warnings were ignored was Kunihiko Shimazaki, a retired professor of seismology at the University of Tokyo. Eight years ago, as a member of an influential cabinet office committee on offshore earthquakes in northeastern Japan, Mr. Shimazaki warned that Fukushima’s coast was vulnerable to tsunamis more than twice as tall as the forecasts of up to 17 feet put forth by regulators and Tepco.

Minutes of the meeting on Feb. 19, 2004, show that the government bureaucrats running the committee moved quickly to exclude his views from debate as too speculative and “pending further research.” None of the other 13 academics on the committee objected. Mr. Shimazaki’s warnings were not even mentioned in the committee’s final report two years later. He said the committee did not want to force Tepco to make expensive upgrades at the plant.

. . . . In 2008, Tepco engineers made three separate sets of calculations that showed that Fukushima Daiichi could be hit by tsunamis as high as 50 feet, according to the company. A Tepco spokesman, Takeo Iwamoto, said Tepco did not tell regulators at NISA for almost a year, and then did not reveal the most alarming calculation, of a 50-foot wave, until March 7 of last year — four days before the tsunami actually struck.

. . . .

Astronuc

Mar10-12, 06:57 AM

http://fukushima.ans.org/

Supposedly has a report on fukushima that I cannot (yet?) access for reason of it being password-protected. Can anyone get to it? Try this link - http://fukushima.ans.org/report/Fukushima_report.pdf

If one still has problems, let me know.

zapperzero

Mar10-12, 07:41 AM

Try this link - http://fukushima.ans.org/report/Fukushima_report.pdf

If one still has problems, let me know.

It's working, thanks. Re-reading it now.
The first skim produced a few impressions:
- these people have never heard of filtered vents
- they have no idea what the media is and they think they can control it

On the plus side, there are many technical suggestions that make very good sense (independent vent paths, improving RCICs by removing dependency on electricity, faster-than-realtime plant simulator for use in emergencies, adding&/improving sensors etc)

nikkkom

Mar10-12, 08:14 AM

I am sure the same Japanese government that has unilaterally and without consulting the citizenry chosen to both allow TEPCO to hike rates AND to bail them out to the tune of 500 million dollars so far is going to be really amenable to dialogue and implementing well-formulated plans. Wait, I am not.

Also, is it the sole responsibility of citizens of Japan to make sure that no GE Mark 1 BWRs ever go poof again?

After you vented your anger, do you have anything constructive to propose?

zapperzero

Mar10-12, 08:29 AM

After you vented your anger, do you have anything constructive to propose?

If I had any new and original ideas, I would have presented them. You seem to disfavor even old and unoriginal ones.

Astronuc

Mar10-12, 08:33 AM

- these people have never heard of filtered vents?

Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Task CH3: Containment ( NUREG-0933, Main Report with Supplements 1–34 )
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec5/ch3.html
ITEM CH3.2: FILTERED VENTING
This item consists of one recommendation that is evaluated below.

ITEM CH3:2A: FILTERED VENTING
The issue called for the staff to determine whether U.S. containments should be backfitted with filtered vents to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents as is being proposed and implemented in Europe. The Chernobyl accident heightened interest in this issue, though the issue itself has no specific Chernobyl counterpart. The purpose of this issue is to develop information to be used in assessing filtered vents proposed for U.S. reactors and to advise the Commission on whether such systems should be required for specific categories of U.S. reactors. The staff will assess the filtered venting technology emerging from European research and applications for potential U.S. reactor severe accident improvements. This work is a non-distinguishable part of the development of accident management strategies and containment performance assessments.

In pursuing this issue, the staff is expected to increase its knowledge, certainty, and understanding of safety issues in order to increase its confidence in assessing levels of safety. Therefore, the issue considered is to be a licensing issue.

CONCLUSION

Venting is being studied by INEL under staff contracts. This study requires an assessment of European research and applications and keeping abreast of relevant literature and participation in international evaluation activities. One such activity was the Nuclear Energy Senior Group of Experts on Severe Accidents meeting on Filtered Containment Venting Systems held in May 1988 in Paris and the preparation of a "white paper" on the technology and related issues. No separate projects or assessments arising from Chernobyl are envisaged.

Both Westinghouse and AREVA offer Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS)
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Products_&_Services/docs/flysheets/NS-IMS-0054.pdf
http://us.areva.com/home/liblocal/docs/Solutions/campaigns/Proven_Solutions/FCVS.html
http://us.areva.com/EN/home-1496/new-challenges-proven-solutions-emergency-preparedness-filtered-containment-venting-system-fcvs.html

http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/1988/csni88-148.pdf (large file ~ 14.8 MB)
http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/1988/csni88-156.pdf

http://sacre.web.psi.ch/ISAMM2009/oecd-sami2001/Papers/p23-Eckart/OECD_H2_Vent_Rev._a3.pdf

etudiant

Mar10-12, 09:16 AM

Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Task CH3: Containment ( NUREG-0933, Main Report with Supplements 1–34 )
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec5/ch3.html

Both Westinghouse and AREVA offer Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS)
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Products_&_Services/docs/flysheets/NS-IMS-0054.pdf
http://us.areva.com/home/liblocal/docs/Solutions/campaigns/Proven_Solutions/FCVS.html
http://us.areva.com/EN/home-1496/new-challenges-proven-solutions-emergency-preparedness-filtered-containment-venting-system-fcvs.html

http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/1988/csni88-148.pdf (large file ~ 14.8 MB)
http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/1988/csni88-156.pdf

http://sacre.web.psi.ch/ISAMM2009/oecd-sami2001/Papers/p23-Eckart/OECD_H2_Vent_Rev._a3.pdf

These documents apparently date from the mid 1990s and speak of substantial numbers of installations (54 in one case), so it is surprising that the TEPCO plants did not have these.
Were there either passive recombiners or filtered venting facilities at Fukushima that just did not work in the conditions at hand?

rmattila

Mar10-12, 09:33 AM

Back-fitting old plants with passive filtered venting systems (multi-venturi scrubbing system, MVSS) has one possible complication: if the filtering tank is to be installed indoors (which may be necessary to prevent freezing), there might not be much room for it, so the tank will be rather small. This means adding pressure head to the containment. One should analyze the consequences carefully in order to be sure that the existing low-pressure injection and firewater systems that may be needed in severe accident situations have a sufficient capacity to overcome this additional counter-pressure.

tsutsuji

Mar11-12, 06:13 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120310/index.html The NHK checked the progress of the reinforcement measures listed by the NISA in February, by asking each nuclear plant operator about the 12 points considered "important points", among a list of 30. All plant operators have installed redundant power supplies, including air-cooled generators and power generating trucks. The installations of watertight building doors are completed or under work. The dispersion of the main power distribution panels, meant to lower the risk of a blackout, is difficult to undertake immediately, as finding a suitable location and construction work take time. The installation of batteries able to supply power to instrumentation for a long time is "under study" at all nuclear power plants. Pr. Kazuhiko Kudo of Kyushu university says the government must say clearly which items must be completed before the restart of the plants and which items are allowed to be done later.

The 30 points are probably those mentioned in http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/02/20120216004/20120216004.html "Technical knowledge on the Tokyo Electric Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident (interim compilation)" (16 February 2012) as "Matters being considered which should be reflected in future regulations".

[Countermeasures for external power]
1 Improvement of reliability of external power lines
2 Improvement of earthquake resistance of transformer equipments
3 Improvement of earthquake resistance of switching stations
4 Quick recovery of external power equipments

[Countermeasures for internal electric power equipments]
5 Dispersion of internal electric equipments into different locations
6 Reinforcement of inundation countermeasures
7 Reinforcement of redundancy and diversification of emergency AC power supplies
8 Reinforcement of emergency DC power supplies
9 Installation of separate power supplies for exclusive use
10 Simplification of electric supply from outside
11 Storage of spare items in relation with electric equipments

[Countermeasures for cooling and water injection]
12 Improvement of judgement capacity during an accident
13 Securing inundation resistance and dispersion into different locations of cooling equipments
14 Reinforcement of final heat sink after an accident
15 Improvement of operational reliability of isolation valves and safety relief valves
16 Reinforcement of alternative water injection function
17 Improvement of reliability of cooling and water supplying function of spent fuel pools

[Countermeasures for primary containtment vessel]
18 Diversification of PCV heat removal function
19 Countermeasures to prevent PCV top head flange damage by excess of heat
20 Secured transition to low pressure alternative water injection
21 Improvement of venting reliability and operability
22 Reduction of the environmental impact of venting
23 Secure independance of venting pipes
24 Prevention of hydrogen explosions (concentration management and appropriate release)

[Countermeasures for management and measurement equipments]
25 Equip and secure the command post used during accidents
26 Secure the communication function
27 Secure the reliability of instrumentation during accidents
28 Reinforcement of plant status surveillance function
29 Reinforcement of monitoring function during accidents
30 Building of emergency response system and performance of drills

Underlined items are for boiling water reactors only.

zapperzero

Mar11-12, 07:23 AM

Were there either passive recombiners or filtered venting facilities at Fukushima that just did not work in the conditions at hand?

One of TEPCO's theories wrt the explosions is that some of the hydrogen that was supposed to be vented directly via the hardened vents flowed back into the building through the SGTS.
More here, among other places:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201106040401

EDIT: I do not see how this explains anything, frankly. If hydrogen was supposed to go out from the RPV into the drywell, then wetwell and then via either hardened vent or SGTS into the stack, I cannot understand how it could have entered the reactor buildings instead of flowing back into the wetwell and accumulating there.

zapperzero

Mar11-12, 01:40 PM

NRC transcript from the 17th confirms that US help was refused at least once.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A109.pdf

MR. CASTO: Right. So, well, there were
22 five pumps delivered to the site. We got that moving.
23 They've accepted them, apparently, this time.

zapperzero

Mar12-12, 04:29 AM

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201203090078?imgIX=0&page=1
a writeup of what happened in the Japan PM office and J-gov in general during the first five days

EDIT: It's behind a paywall. Perhaps someone who has a subscription could print it to PDF? For personal archival purposes, of course.

tsutsuji

Mar13-12, 12:32 PM

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2012/03/09/01008-20120309ARTFIG00634-fukushima-la-centrale-n-aurait-jamais-du-etre-inondee.php Interview of Armando Armijo, seismologist at the Paris Institut de physique du Globe.

"The problem is that the occurrence of an extreme event such as that of March 11 was underestimated by the Japanese seismologists and by an international consensus, according to which earthquakes in that part of Japan were not supposed to exceed magnitude 7.5".
...
"In my view, this is the gravest scientific error in history."

How was that possible?

By the refusal to take into account data and events that might break the previously established consensus. It is the case of the 1952 Kamchatka earthquake, although it is located in the same subduction zone, and similar in all respects with the March 11 earthquake.

tsutsuji

Mar14-12, 07:23 AM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120314/2020_rokuga.html On 14 March it was found by the Diet's investigation commission that a video showing the then prime minister Naoto Kan visiting Tepco's main office on 15 March 2011 has been recorded. However, the sound and voices were not recorded. According to a commission member, during the 50 minutes when they were busy to respond to the prime minister, the emergency response center was not functioning. According to another commission member it is "strange" that only those 50 minutes are without records of voice. The president of the commission also says "I was surprised" to learn that there is no voice recording.

NUCENG

Mar16-12, 11:44 AM

I am posting a link to an article that discusses the magnitude of the Japanese Disaster from the earthquake and tsunami as compared to the public and media focus on the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.

We have discussed a lot of aspects of the nuclear issues and politics. In this forum that is totally justified. The article just brings a little balance to the discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html

clancy688

Mar16-12, 02:15 PM

The article just brings a little balance to the discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html

He's right when he criticises the media hysteria which pushed another disaster in the background.
But then he keeps on arguing that because there were no deaths by radiation, Fukushima wasn't a "real disaster". Which's pretty much ******** in my opinion. He's making a mistake many people are tempted to do - he's narrowing down the catgorization of a disaster on caused deaths alone.
If you're instead looking at "lifes heavily affected", then Fukushima is a major, major disaster.

Sure, radiation didn't kill anyone (so far) in Fukushima. But that's not the point. 100.000 people lost their homes for years, some probably for decades. Hundreds of square kilometres are lost, thousands more can't be used for food growth anymore.
To sum it up we have 100.000 refugees, the destroyed economy of several cities, severly restricted farming in large areas and a whole region being uninhabitable. Can you really argue that this "disaster never was" only because nobody died?

At last a few notes on some of his paragraphs:

We had forgotten the real victims, the 20,000-and-counting Japanese people killed, in favour of a nuclear scare story.

So those 100.000 refugees are not "real victims"? And what's with all those other tsunami related refugees?

It wasn’t until several weeks later that the first considered scientific reports emerged from Japan, notably the report by Britain’s nuclear regulator, Mike Weightman, which made it clear that although outdated, riddled with design flaws and struck by geological forces that went way beyond the design brief, the Fukushima plant had survived remarkably intact.

???
This man has an interesting definition of the term "intact".

There are bitter ironies in all of this. The panic caused a minor evacuation of Tokyo, which almost certainly resulted in more road deaths than will ever be attributable to radiation leaks.

Is he implying that road deaths attributed to panic are worse than all those displaced people?

tsutsuji

Mar16-12, 03:12 PM

Why entitle the article "the real victims of Fukushima" if his purpose is to talk about the tsunami victims whose greatest numbers are in Iwate and Miyagi prefecture and not in Fukushima prefecture.

And If the Daily Telgraph is convinced that one should talk more about the tsunami than about the nuclear accident, why is the list of "related articles" provided with this one the following ?

Related Articles

Fukushima tour
21 Feb 2012

Fukushima nuclear plant opened to journalists
20 Feb 2012

Japan's trade deficit balloons to all-time high
20 Feb 2012

The aftershocks still hitting Japan
19 Feb 2012

Secret nuclear risk report lost
17 Feb 2012

NUCENG

Mar17-12, 11:19 AM

He's right when he criticises the media hysteria which pushed another disaster in the background.
But then he keeps on arguing that because there were no deaths by radiation, Fukushima wasn't a "real disaster". Which's pretty much ******** in my opinion. He's making a mistake many people are tempted to do - he's narrowing down the catgorization of a disaster on caused deaths alone.
If you're instead looking at "lifes heavily affected", then Fukushima is a major, major disaster.

Sure, radiation didn't kill anyone (so far) in Fukushima. But that's not the point. 100.000 people lost their homes for years, some probably for decades. Hundreds of square kilometres are lost, thousands more can't be used for food growth anymore.
To sum it up we have 100.000 refugees, the destroyed economy of several cities, severly restricted farming in large areas and a whole region being uninhabitable. Can you really argue that this "disaster never was" only because nobody died?

At last a few notes on some of his paragraphs:

So those 100.000 refugees are not "real victims"? And what's with all those other tsunami related refugees?

???
This man has an interesting definition of the term "intact".

Is he implying that road deaths attributed to panic are worse than all those displaced people?

No, I don't think the author meant anything to imply that the reactor accident was not also a "disaster." Just that the focus has been skewed and fear mongering sells news. Being displace is bad. Billions of dollarslost is bad. Depression, suicide, and worries about future health effects are bad, But 20,000 deaths are also bad and unrecoverably permanent.