Fukushima How will they end the Fukushima disaster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishmanGeertz
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The Fukushima nuclear disaster has been officially classified as a level 7 incident, comparable to Chernobyl, raising concerns about containment and long-term impacts. Discussions focus on potential solutions, such as constructing containment structures similar to Chernobyl's sarcophagus, but opinions vary on the feasibility and necessity of such measures. Some argue that the reactors are beyond salvage and will likely remain abandoned, while others believe some reactors are still operational and the surrounding areas may not need permanent evacuation. The ongoing debate emphasizes the need for lessons learned in nuclear safety, particularly regarding the location of plants in earthquake-prone coastal regions. The consensus is that the situation remains critical, with significant uncertainty about the future of the Fukushima site and its environmental impact.
  • #31
Dmytry said:
How will they end Fukushima disaster? Before you propose something at Chernobyl cost level, look at the Chernobyl history - 3 volunteers diving into radioactive water to open the valve, 2 of them dying, the frantic efforts to drill under reactor and freeze the ground with liquid nitrogen, ALL the liquid nitrogen of western soviet union thrown at this, mining equipment, oil drilling equipment, mining crews, all to prevent second steam explosion. In what timeframe? First week.
Look at the Chernobyl vehicle graveyard. Look at those enormous helicopters. Look how much was thrown at this to end the disaster. The 'sarcophagus' is the result - it may not look too shabby, but the cost was enormous.

Now look at Fukushima. Not even the spent fuel fire in reactor 4 spent fuel pool was averted. Not a single hydrogen explosion was prevented (by removing part of roof). Ten or so workers died in the explosions.
The sea water cooling was done very late due to concerns for the billion dollar reactors (now the government says TEPCO delayed this and disobeyed direct order to do that).
The loop cooling was never established. The sea water cooling was not flow through, but boil off cooling (clogging reactors with salt).
Look at the radioactive water problem. Soviets could of thrown every spare cistern truck at this in a week. It could of reused this radioactive water that leaks out for cooling. It could of manufactured some crude filters, or had every chemical research centre in the whole union devising a way to get those radioactive elements out of the solution. Something very simple could of worked, like adding a lot of clay.

I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm just pointing out the enormous difference in the available resources. Japanese also had the tsunami and the earthquake to deal with, of course, but even when it is over the resources are not similar. If it was in US then you could fantasise of sufficient resources and giant projects. It is not in US. It is not 1 reactor.

So you ask, "How will they end the Fukushima disaster?" . I do not know, the only thing I know is that they got 3 reactors and 4 spent fuel pool, and far, far less resources for ending it.

"Ten or so workers died in the explosions." That sounds like an estimate. Have you seen any actual reports of deaths other than the crane operator at Daini, the two workers killed during the tsunami, and the heart attack during cleanup?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
There are rumours that six JSDF soldiers died in the Unit 3 explosion. But there never was an official confirmation.
 
  • #33
clancy688 said:
There are rumours that six JSDF soldiers died in the Unit 3 explosion. But there never was an official confirmation.

I understand there have been rumors and some exagerations that show up, but never can be attributed to a source and no confirmation exists. Sometimes you can judge a rumor from things that haven't happened. How has the media missed the opportunity to exploit the families of "6 dead SDF soldiers?"
 
  • #34
Well, here's the article that triggered this rumour:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nami-Fukushima-Fifty-the-first-interview.html

(Oh, and don't understand me wrong... I don't believe it either. I came over a couple of reports during the last weeks which stated that there were indeed soldiers arriving, when Unit 3 blew up. But they escaped with minor injuries. Can't find these reports now, though...)
 
  • #35
clancy688 said:
Well, here's the article that triggered this rumour:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nami-Fukushima-Fifty-the-first-interview.html

(Oh, and don't understand me wrong... I don't believe it either. I came over a couple of reports during the last weeks which stated that there were indeed soldiers arriving, when Unit 3 blew up. But they escaped with minor injuries. Can't find these reports now, though...)

Here is what I found looking into that:

Blogger attributed to Japan Times:
http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=3161

Another news story:
http://www.japanupdate.com/?id=11060

A colonel with the unit describes injuries not deaths:
http://fukushimanewsresearch.wordpr...-fearing-for-life-in-fukushima-reactor-blast/

And here is Japan Times:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110607a5.html

Injuries are confirmed, not deaths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Now for the good news.

According to JAIF ,fuel rod extraction can begin in 10 years .

Is that from the sfp's ?cos there can't be many "rods"left intact in reactor soup land.
 
  • #37
Caniche said:
According to JAIF ,fuel rod extraction can begin in 10 years .

What did we recently learn about TEPCO-timetables? Expect the worst, double it, and the real timetable will most likely be ten times longer than your estimate.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
NUCENG said:
I understand there have been rumors and some exagerations that show up, but never can be attributed to a source and no confirmation exists. Sometimes you can judge a rumor from things that haven't happened. How has the media missed the opportunity to exploit the families of "6 dead SDF soldiers?"

But that was a massive blast scattering shrapnel from 1-4 and further .
I guess the site must have been evacuated earlier?
What time was the evacuation order given ,and how long did how many people have to escape?
 
  • #39
Caniche said:
But that was a massive blast scattering shrapnel from 1-4 and further .
I guess the site must have been evacuated earlier?
What time was the evacuation order given ,and how long did how many people have to escape?

No evacuation during unit 1 explosion - 4 injured
No evacuation during unit 3 explosion - 11 injured
No evacualtion during unit 3 explosion - 0 injured
Operators and site were reportedly evacuated, heard explosion from site, found building 4 damage on return and reported explosion was probably in unit 4 - 0 injuries
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
17K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
22K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K