Register to reply

The more political thread besides Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants scientific one

by jlduh
Tags: scientific
Share this thread:
zapperzero
#649
Jan27-12, 04:46 AM
P: 1,042
Quote Quote by etudiant View Post
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 It was withdrawn (to a US army base in Japan iirc), then sent again, then withdrawn again.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
#650
Jan27-12, 11:01 AM
P: 546
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
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
#651
Jan27-12, 11:46 AM
P: 1,042
Quote Quote by clancy688 View Post
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
#652
Jan27-12, 12:25 PM
PF Gold
P: 858
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
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
#653
Jan27-12, 03:21 PM
P: 68
Quote Quote by etudiant View Post
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
#654
Jan27-12, 03:45 PM
PF Gold
P: 858
Quote Quote by Yamanote View Post
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
#655
Jan27-12, 04:23 PM
P: 106
Quote Quote by Yamanote View Post
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
etudiant
#656
Jan27-12, 04:38 PM
PF Gold
P: 858
Quote Quote by Caniche View Post
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
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
#657
Jan27-12, 05:38 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,515
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
#658
Jan30-12, 02:38 PM
P: 106
Quote Quote by etudiant View Post
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
#659
Feb13-12, 07:34 AM
P: 1,042
TEPCO posts losses equal to already received gov't bailout, asks gov't for more money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...on-of-aid.html
zapperzero
#660
Feb15-12, 07:26 AM
P: 1,042
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/fukushim...hima-city.html
tsutsuji
#661
Feb18-12, 02:01 PM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/201...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
#662
Feb18-12, 06:00 PM
P: 2
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
#663
Feb19-12, 04:10 AM
P: 1,042
Quote Quote by LKofEnglish View Post
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
#664
Feb19-12, 08:49 PM
P: 2
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?
etudiant
#665
Feb19-12, 10:48 PM
PF Gold
P: 858
Quote Quote by LKofEnglish View Post
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
#666
Feb20-12, 05:48 AM
P: 595
Quote Quote by LKofEnglish View Post
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?
I have no idea what you are talking about. But assuming some mildly contaminated material is indeed used that way - why is that bad? What do you propose instead? Remember - the less contaminated material is, the more there is of it. For example, there will be A LOT (many tons) of ground scraped in various "hot spots" during decontamination, but ground from even the most dirty hot spot is not particularly dangerous. Say, 20000 Bq/kg? As long as no one _eats_ it, it's not a big deal. But where to put all these tons?

Are these people insane?
No.
Are you done with screaming and ready for adult dialogue?

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?
There is no radioactive flotsam from Japan. If you'd have just a little bit of common sense, you'd know that.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
In binary can we have a value with deci centi mili or more lower valued prefix? Computers 14
Ben and Jerry's 'Boston Creme Pie Ice Cream Appreciation Thread General Discussion 2
You are subscribed to this thread L di/dt vs. i dL/dt kmarinas86 Classical Physics 1
Difference between Identical , Equal , Equivalent Calculus & Beyond Homework 9