Prepping for 700 'Fukushimas'

[Jeem]

Main Question or Discussion Point

This post serves as a follow-up to the thread "Solar flares & CMEs: Serious threat?"

According to the International Journal of Research and Applications, there is a one in eight chance the earth will experience a massive solar storm within the next decade. [...]

"A 2011 Oak Ridge National Laboratory report warned of a 33 percent likelihood that a solar flare could lead to 'long-term power loss' over a nuclear reactor’s life. With 440 nuclear power plants in 30 countries, and 250 research reactors, there are nearly 700 potential Fukushimas waiting to be unleashed."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/potential-solar-flare-could-knock-out-the-modern-world

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?

 

[russ_watters]

How far are you from the nearest nuclear plant?

 

[Astronuc]

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?

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[Antiphon]

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.

 

[nikkkom]

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.

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".

 

[QuantumPion]

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".

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).

 

[clancy688]

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).

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?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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?

Do you have a reference to support this?

 

[Astronuc]

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.

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/index.php/news/article/tornado-cuts-power-to-surry-nuclear-power-plant/

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".

As far as I know, they do have appropriate dosimeters and radiation detectors. The local NPP is a twin unity PWR station.

 

[clancy688]

Do you have a reference to support this?

Are you serious? How many people do you think have been displaced because of Fukushima? One hint: The number's close to six digits.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Are you serious? How many people do you think have been displaced because of Fukushima? One hint: The number's close to six digits.

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.

 

[clancy688]

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.

 

[mheslep]

Are you serious? How many people do you think have been displaced because of Fukushima? One hint: The number's close to six digits.

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.

 

[clancy688]

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".

 

[mheslep]

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".

The tsunami was not the only thing that killed and displaced people; the 9.0 earthquake also had some impact.

 

[clancy688]

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".

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[mheslep]

Now you're beginning to make things up.

Please quote my passage that you claim is fabricated.

The death count of the massive 9.0 earthquake didn't exceed 100 people.

Do you have a source for that claim? If true it would be unprecedented.

 

[russ_watters]

Clancy, you should at least read the wiki page rather than just making this stuff up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

 

[clancy688]

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.

I'm not for sure with the money (the nuclear disaster's costs were measured at 250 billion, which's equal to the total earthquake and tsunami damages), but for the rest, yep. You're right.
Still - that's absolutely no effect on our current discussion. All I was talking about (and what I thought YOU were talking about) was the number of people displaced by the tsunami/earthquake and not the nuclear disaster INSIDE the exclusion zone.

I said "Inside the exclusion zone, the disaster displaced a lot more people than the tsunami and earthquake together."
You countered with: "But if you consider Japan as a whole, the tsunami / earthquake displaced WAY MORE people than the nuclear disaster."

Which may be true but certainly isn't the point here... my one and only assertion is that a nuclear disaster displaced tens of thousands of people who wouldn't have had to leave their homes if there would've been no nuclear disaster.

And no you want to counter by telling me that something else displaced more people somewhere else?

Ebola is no big deal. There may've been some deaths here and there. But overall, the rabies killed millions over the years! Did Ebola kill millions? No? See? Rabies is certainly worse! Is that what you're trying to tell me?

The earthquake/tsunami is still in the lead.

As told above, that wasn't the point. The point was that a recent nuclear disaster displaced tens of thousands of people, which's definitely NOT a "good track record" on my watch.

Do you have a source for that claim? If true it would be unprecedented.

Granted, it wasn't 100 shaking deaths. I just looked the number up. 230 is about right. For ALL OF Japan.

@russ_waters:
And you should read my posts. Carefully.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I thought that it was possible that you meant that but don't see why that is a useful constraint. I did read your post, but that constraint seems like gamesmanship, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Your ebola/rabies example doesn't seem to fit. We're not talking about Chernobyl vs every earthquake in history, we're talking about subsets of damage from one event. What our standards do for us is ensure that if there is a natural disaster, damage resulting from an associated nuclear disaster will be less. I consider that a very useful thing to be able to say.

 

[clancy688]

Useful constraint in sense of "If 230 were killed in all of Tohoku's 70'000 square kilometers, how many earthquake-related casualties probably occured in the 700 square kilometers large exclusion zone which's at least 150 kilometers away from the epicenter?".

 

[russ_watters]

Useful in terms of ranking disasters and prioritizing responses. For example, one might ask:

1. Is it worthwhile to shut down the rest of our nuclear plants?
2. Which will save more lives in the future: focusing on nuclear codes or building codes?
3. Which is worthy of more newspaper coverage?

 

[clancy688]

Those points are certainly valid, but still they change nothing about the one and only thing I stated in this thread and which all of you are p***yfooting around. ;)

My statement: There's been a recent accident which displaced tens of thousands of people. Therefore, proclaiming nuclear plants have a "good track record" falls somehow... "short" of the reality (apart from the small but funny prerequirement that safe nuclear power plants are safe... except for the unsafe ones in places like the Soviet Union, but those obviously don't count...).