Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Prepping for 700 'Fukushimas'

  1. Sep 1, 2012 #1
    This post serves as a follow-up to the thread "Solar flares & CMEs: Serious threat?"
    Given the above and what was said in the other thread, my question is as follows:

    What preparations, if any, can I make in order to survive 700 potential nuclear meltdowns and avoid coming into contact with harmful radiation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2012 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    How far are you from the nearest nuclear plant?
     
  4. Sep 2, 2012 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To have 700 nuclear plants with loss of off-site power implies that all the national grids are down - as would be all the other types of electrical plants. That means most people would not have access to electricity, and probably no water, and probably no food after a few days, no transportation except bicycles and the like, no medical care, little or no money, . . . . The nuclear plants should be the least of one's worries at that point.

    The headlines declaring 700 potential nuclear meltdowns are sensational. There is little value in such articles.

    Utilities have been preparing for disruptions in grid due to solar storms, since they are responsible for supporting national infrastructures.

    2012: Killer Solar Flares Are a Physical Impossibility
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-superFlares.html

    2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html

    The CME concern seems to be way overblown.

    Nuclear utilites have had to revisit and if necessary revise their plans for dealing with extended SBO (station blackout) following the Fukushima accident.

    Both the industry and safety authorities have reiterated their commitments to ensure safety of nuclear plants - especially in conjunction with unplanned and unanticipated natural events. The industry is planning (anticipating) for the unanticipated.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2012
  5. Sep 4, 2012 #4

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Even if the grid went down from a flare the plants should still have their onsite backup power, which could be extended along as they can receive new tanks of diesel.
     
  6. Sep 5, 2012 #5
    The best preparation is to sell me your house at a steep discount. I'll let you live in it for free until 2014. After that, should you survive the fear-mongering and doomsaying, your rent will go up considerably.

    The nice thing about this solar scare business is its absolutely impossible to blame it on man's industrial output. Given that, it won't have much political value to anyone and will soon be forgotten.
     
  7. Sep 5, 2012 #6
    This industry has stellar record of reiterating commitments.

    When it comes to response to actual unanticipated natural events, as we just witnessed, the record is much less shiny.

    I bet your nearby nuclear plant has no adequate radiation detectors. Should unthinkable happen again, the workers will again stroll in the darkness with "uh oh, our dosimeters went offscale high because idiot managers thought that having fields of more than 20 rem/h is never going to happen".
     
  8. Sep 5, 2012 #7

    QuantumPion

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Utter nonsense. All plant workers entering the RCA are issued programmable digital alarming dosimetry. Stationary rad monitors are located at all steam transfer points to monitor for radiation release and personell safety.

    As for track record of unanticipated events, the nuclear industry has quite a good track record, considering the number of people who have or will die of radiation from commercial reactors in the history of commercial nuclear power is zero (excluding soviet run ones, which were known for disregarding worker and public safety to save cost to the government).
     
  9. Sep 5, 2012 #8
    Don't want to start this (again), but there's some nonsense I just can't ignore: And tens of thousands of people who have lost their homes due to the remarkably "good track record" of nuclear plants don't count?
     
  10. Sep 5, 2012 #9

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Do you have a reference to support this?
     
  11. Sep 5, 2012 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Fukushima experienced an extraordinary event that destroyed many towns and villages outside of the plant. In fact, the entire country was unprepared for that event - not just the nuclear industry. On the other hand, TEPCO should have been prepared.

    North Anna experienced earthquake that shut it down. They responded according to plan, and the plant was safely shutdown. Fort Calhoun responded to a severe flood. The plant was already shutdown for a refueling outage. They dealt with the flooding and maintained power at the site. In 2011, the Surry plant had a tornado take out the swithyard. Again - safe shutdown.
    http://www.virginiabusiness.com/ind...nado-cuts-power-to-surry-nuclear-power-plant/

    As far as I know, they do have appropriate dosimeters and radiation detectors. The local NPP is a twin unity PWR station.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2012
  12. Sep 5, 2012 #11
    Are you serious? How many people do you think have been displaced because of Fukushima? One hint: The number's close to six digits.
     
  13. Sep 5, 2012 #12

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes I'm serious, I was wondering if anyone had done a proper study. With regards to Fukushima are you serious? You realise there was an earthquake and tsunami right? Unless you have a reference for how many had to move because of the reactor rather than the tsunami. That I would be interested in.
     
  14. Sep 5, 2012 #13
    I think it's actually the other way around. There are no major port cities in the exclusion zone, the next nearest port city which was hit hard by the tsunami is Minamisoma in the north, just outside the zone.

    As for the numbers - the IRSN report from May 2011 states that the total population inside the 20km exclusion zone was around 85'000. Since the zone is entirely off-limits, those 85'000 is a near-certain number. Moreover, since the zone is a half sphere, and since the plant itself is covering a good chunk of the coast, most people lived not at the coast and therefore not at places where the tsunami could've done damage. Furthermore, the major population centers inside the zone (Futaba, Tomioka, Okuma, with at least 35'000 people) escaped, according to google earth images, nearly unscarred since those towns are far away from the coast.
    Yes, there's been tsunami damage. But if you look at satellite images of the exclusion zone, you'll realize that only a very small part of all houses in that area were affected.
    The newest number I'd heard was 90'000 displaced, which seems like a good fit overall. The 85'000 of the zone plus several thousand residents of Namie.

    Basically: Use google earth to look at the towns and houses inside the exclusion zone. Compare the number of the buildings affected by tsunami damage to the buildings which are uneffected. And then decide for yourself which disaster displaced thousands and which displaced tens of thousands.
     
  15. Sep 5, 2012 #14

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That were not already killed or displaced by the tsunami and earthquake? The death toll alone was over 15,000, all due to the earthquake and tsunami.
     
  16. Sep 5, 2012 #15
    Look at my post above. Jesus, people. Use your mind. One look at a map tells you that more than 90% of the people inside the 20km zone were nowhere near the tsunami's "destruction zone".
     
  17. Sep 5, 2012 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The tsunami was not the only thing that killed and displaced people; the 9.0 earthquake also had some impact.
     
  18. Sep 5, 2012 #17
    Now you're beginning to make things up. The death count of the massive 9.0 earthquake didn't exceed 100 people. And if the earthquake would've been bad enough to displace tens of thousands of people in a half sphere of only 20 km, then Japan would've been and would still be on the brink of humanitarian catastrophe.

    I don't deny that the tsunami and earthquake must've displaced people. But it's neglectable compared to what the nuclear disaster did. And even IF (and that's an IF the size of at least half the pacific) the earthquake and tsunami together displaced 45'000 people inside this 20km sphere, then there were STILL 45'000 others who were displaced by contamination. To quote NUCENG "Half of a big number is still a big number".
     
  19. Sep 5, 2012 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Clancy, you don't need to look at satellite photos and speculate. Damage figures are public and it can easily be verified that the earthquake and tsunami were much worse by most measures:

    Deaths and injuries? Yep.
    Property (money)? Yep.
    Homelessness? Yep.

    The only metric I can think of where the nuclear disaster may prove worse is long term displacement, but that has yet to be determined. The earthquake/tsunami is still in the lead.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2012
  20. Sep 5, 2012 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Please quote my passage that you claim is fabricated.

    Do you have a source for that claim? If true it would be unprecedented.
     
  21. Sep 5, 2012 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Prepping for 700 'Fukushimas'
  1. Fukushima. Decision. (Replies: 1)

  2. Fukushima Unit Four (Replies: 1)

Loading...