Fukushima Daiichi rated?


by M. Bachmeier
Tags: daiichi, fukushima, rated
M. Bachmeier
M. Bachmeier is offline
#1
Mar16-11, 03:10 PM
P: 184
Is there anyone who is willing to go on record to say that the multiple incidents (ongoing) will not be rated (when all is said and done) as a level 7 emergency?

I would like to know if anyone has any firm convictions.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#2
Mar16-11, 03:28 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
It would help to explain the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ar_Event_Scale
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#3
Mar16-11, 04:30 PM
Mentor
P: 22,007
Seems unlikely is what I'd say. It is worse than TMI (level 5) but is unlikely to come anywhere close to Chernobyl (the only level 7).

AlephZero
AlephZero is online now
#4
Mar16-11, 06:02 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,384

Fukushima Daiichi rated?


Only a fool (or a politician) would go on the record about that before it's "over", I think.

Till then, the best anyone can do is talk about probabilities.
M. Bachmeier
M. Bachmeier is offline
#5
Mar16-11, 06:08 PM
P: 184
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
It would help to explain the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ar_Event_Scale
Sorry, thought it was almost a given by now.
M. Bachmeier
M. Bachmeier is offline
#6
Mar16-11, 06:15 PM
P: 184
I would say that current events are at INES level 6, but that the scale may need redefining at or above level 7 when all is said and done.

This could become the worse accident ever on record and has made me truly wonder if such power systems can be made adequately safe.
Thermalne
Thermalne is offline
#7
Mar16-11, 07:39 PM
P: 263
Quote Quote by M. Bachmeier View Post
I would say that current events are at INES level 6, but that the scale may need redefining at or above level 7 when all is said and done.

This could become the worse accident ever on record and has made me truly wonder if such power systems can be made adequately safe.
Why do you say that?

Do you realize how destructive Chernobyl was?

This accident doesn't even compare to it and you're calling it the "worst accident ever on record."

Clearly you have no formal education involving nuclear engineering nor nuclear reactors. I would suggest you educate yourself before projecting something like that.
M. Bachmeier
M. Bachmeier is offline
#8
Mar17-11, 06:14 AM
P: 184
Quote Quote by crazyisraelie View Post
Why do you say that?

Do you realize how destructive Chernobyl was?

This accident doesn't even compare to it and you're calling it the "worst accident ever on record."

Clearly you have no formal education involving nuclear engineering nor nuclear reactors. I would suggest you educate yourself before projecting something like that.
The quote directly above your statement is "This 'could' become the worst accident ever on record."

That's because their ability to control what's happening is extremely limited and they really aren't sure what to do.

There are multiple problems here. Control systems in a mess. Sensing equipment mostly nonfunctional. The crews are being exposed, and have been exposed, to dangerous levels of radiation. The consequences of sea water cooling are not known. The people on site must be seriously tired and they have to be better than perfect right now.
revnaknuma
revnaknuma is offline
#9
Mar17-11, 06:20 AM
P: 32
I think it is level 4.
vanesch
vanesch is offline
#10
Mar17-11, 08:21 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238
Quote Quote by M. Bachmeier View Post
I would say that current events are at INES level 6, but that the scale may need redefining at or above level 7 when all is said and done.
Well, I don't know. FOR THE MOMENT, this is a level 5 accident if you look at the INES definitions, although officially they put it to 4 (which is, I think, a very bad policy). But I'm not sure they are going to contain the contents of the fuel ponds and the reactors. If they totally stop cooling, and abandon the site, which might be necessary if they have a full meltdown in one of the fuel ponds which seems to be ongoing now and the radiation level at the site or above it is unworkable, I don't see how one can avoid eventually EVERYTHING leaking out one way or another, as all containments will eventually fail without cooling and/or pressure relief. And then I think that one should classify it as a level 7 event, no ? Waiting for an expert to tune in...
QuantumPion
QuantumPion is offline
#11
Mar17-11, 08:24 AM
P: 735
Well from an economic standpoint it is far worse than Chernobyl and is by far the worse disaster to the nuclear industry. Losing 6 units (+2 under construction) is a what, ~$30 billion loss? It's like 15% of the entire generating capacity of TEPCO.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#12
Mar17-11, 08:46 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
I'd put it 5, but I think it is a serious accident. TMI-2 is apparently rated 5, but I'm not sure if any deaths were attributed to radiation.

There is a significant release of activity - outside of containment.

Can nuclear power systems be designed to be safer? Yes, of course.

First - don't put EDGs in a location where they can be destroyed. If the EDGs had worked, we wouldn't have this event.

Second - realize that the Fukushima containment is Mk I, which was superceded by Mk II, then Mk III, and now modern containment systems. In the more modern plants, e.g., Mk III, the spent fuel pools have been removed from the top of the reactor building into a separate area. There were numerous improvements.

I would expect regulators to consider some retrofit of Mk I containments.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#13
Mar17-11, 10:28 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
U.S. shows growing alarm over Japan nuclear crisis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/sc_nm/us_nuclear_usa
PLUME OF RADIATION

Gregory Jaczko, the top U.S. nuclear regulator, cast doubt on efforts to cool overheating reactors, saying workers may be hit with "lethal doses" of radiation.

"It would be very difficult for emergency workers to get near the reactors," Jaczko said.
That might be enough to move it to INES 6.
MeMyself+Eye
MeMyself+Eye is offline
#14
Mar17-11, 12:48 PM
P: 3
I'm uncomfortable with that whole rating system, especially rating it preemptively.

TMI-2 was rated a '5', with no fatalities or associated radiation effects on longevity for anyone. SL-1 was rated a '4' despite the fact there were three fatalities and an explosion. My guess TMI was considered worse since the entire Island was off limits

While it sounds like the, incredibly brave, workers are exposing themselves to detrimental, if not lethal, doses of radiation, unless there is a significant dispersal of radioactive isotopes, this accident could still be rated a '4' or '5'.

Caveat Emptor, my knowledge of Nuclear Power begins and ends at the outlets in my home. I'm just a morbidly curious observer of this mess, and can only add that the Earthquake and Tsunami took thousands of lives.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#15
Mar18-11, 11:38 PM
Mentor
P: 22,007
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
I'd put it 5, but I think it is a serious accident.
At your request :
Japan's nuclear safety agency raised the severity rating of the country's nuclear crisis Friday from Level 4 to Level 5, on a seven-level international scale....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ar-level_N.htm
Quote Quote by Astronuc
TMI-2 is apparently rated 5, but I'm not sure if any deaths were attributed to radiation.
That part is weird to me:
Quote Quote by USA Today
...putting it on par with the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.
The way the wiki describes it, the rating is based on the highest score of several different criteria:
-Severe damage to reactor core.
-Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality accident or fire.
TMI is high on the first criteria but very low on the second.

I think it is likely at this point that the damage in Japan is worse than at TMI so I expected it as well. It's natural that the rating comes after the disaster, so that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I consider human life to be vastly more important than plant damage and environmental damage much more important. So for an accident like TMI that destroyed the reactor, but caused no environmental damage or loss of human life, I don't consider that to be a reasonable rating. Putting TMI one level below Chernobyl makes them sound more similar than they really were. The scale should be more linear than hyperbolic.
M. Bachmeier
M. Bachmeier is offline
#16
Mar19-11, 12:18 AM
P: 184
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...iref=allsearch

Michio Kaku has gone on record (without question) that this is an INES level 6 emergency. His interview earlier in the day suggested his last resort concept was hypothetical.

I think his recommendation would be dangerous at this time based on what nearly happened at Chernobyl. Informed and knowledgeable opinions about the current state of affairs would really help right now.
minerva
minerva is offline
#17
Mar19-11, 02:03 PM
P: 82
Michio Kaku does some good work sometimes, but I've seen him espousing anti-nuclear rubbish on more than one occasion.

INES Level 5 makes sense to me. Comparable to TMI.

Nobody has been injured or killed by radiation, no public members seem to have received any significantly large doses.
M. Bachmeier
M. Bachmeier is offline
#18
Mar24-11, 09:19 AM
P: 184
Do some of the reactor incidents at Fukushima Daiichi deserve to be rated at INES level 6?

"Level 6: Serious accident

Impact on people and environment
Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.

There has been only one such incident to date:

* Kyshtym disaster at Mayak, Soviet Union, 29 September 1957. A failed cooling system at a military nuclear waste reprocessing facility caused a steam explosion that released 70–80 tons of highly radioactive material into the environment. Impact on local population is not fully known. This is the only accident to go over 5 on scale besides Chernobyl. [2]"

And, if so, what could be expected as an implementation of planned countermeasures? Are there planned countermeasures that can address the scope of this (these) incident(s)?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Space Rated Accelerometers Aerospace Engineering 1
How many of you feel that birthdays are over rated? General Discussion 40
Why is volume rated at 0 decibels? General Discussion 6
Rated Power System Electrical Engineering 3