Fukushima Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

[andybwell]

Is this the stage of Fukushima reactor 1?

" If the normal pumping of coolant through the reactor has failed, only minimal amounts of heat can be removed from the molten mass of uranium and fission products, except by the concrete and ultimately the ground. Once the reactor vessel bottom has been breached (melted), or if the accident began with a rupture of the reactor vessel, it is not possible to use the coolant circulation system even if the pumping could be restored. So, although 10 hours, or 3½ days or 15 days may seem like a long time, there is virtually nothing that anyone can do to affect the steady accumulation of heat energy or to cool or remove or scatter the uranium mix."

If so, we are in BIG trouble.

 

[JaredJames]

Perhaps you should check up what's currently happening before plastering that sort of thing and making wild statements about being in trouble. It serves no purpose than fear mongering.

 

[clancy688]

Is this the stage of Fukushima reactor 1?

" If the normal pumping of coolant through the reactor has failed, only minimal amounts of heat can be removed from the molten mass of uranium and fission products, except by the concrete and ultimately the ground. Once the reactor vessel bottom has been breached (melted), or if the accident began with a rupture of the reactor vessel, it is not possible to use the coolant circulation system even if the pumping could be restored. So, although 10 hours, or 3½ days or 15 days may seem like a long time, there is virtually nothing that anyone can do to affect the steady accumulation of heat energy or to cool or remove or scatter the uranium mix."

If so, we are in BIG trouble.

The fuel in reactor 1 probably melted and is now in the lower part of the reactor pressure vessel. Although the vessel was breached and amounts of nuclear fuel probably leaked into the containment, most of the molten fuel is, according to TEPCO, still in the reactor pressure vessel and cooled by the remaining water.
There are leaks in that RPV, and there are thousands of tons of water unaccounted for (they are probably somewhere in the basement of Unit 1), but apparently the fuel can still be cooled. They are not using a circulation system, but rather pouring water in the RPV which escapes then through the leaks.

Positive: There's still cooling capability
Negative: They're creating more and more liquid radioactive waste - and they don't know where parts of this waste go to. It's better than a full scale melt through, though.

 

[pcr01]

If we shut every nuclear plant in the world today, we will lose 20% of the power generation in the US. You will still be exposed to low level radiation. There will still be cancer deaths. In the hot California summer there will be more brownouts and rotating blackouts. Power shortages cost lives more certainly than your lack of proof of harm from nuclear plants. If I recall the great Northeastern Blackout a few years ago had 6 deaths blamed on the blackout. Remember the people in Chicago that died of heatstroke after the steam explosion in the utility tunnels cut off their power? Even a traffic light out of service can be deadly. It is time for you to start justifying those kinds of threats before we start shutting anything down. Economic disaster and increased death rates are a common sense approach?

The same God that gave me a soul gave me a brain - my dreamworld, your reality. Okay I'll choose my dreamworld where I will try to make things better. You can have your reality where we all should be huddled in a corner waiting to die. You have seen many people die from radiation exposure. Really? Were they first responders at Chernobyl? No? Then, Sir, show your proof.

"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html


Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1573317578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[pcr01]

The only way to decide anything is to look at statistical data and make an educated guess.

Statistics are only as good as the person who records them.

 

[Drakkith]

"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html


Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1573317578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Hrmm. If this is true, then wow...

 

[Astronuc]

"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html


Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1573317578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Comment by the New York Academy of Science.
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

 

[corrina]

Do you have data to support this statement?

Note that according to forum rules such data must be published in a peer reviewed magazine.

In December 2010, the International Journal of Health Services published findings of the study, i.e. that “Boomers” born 1959-1961 who died of cancer had Sr-90 levels in their teeth more than twice (+122%) greater than those the same age who are alive and healthy.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/aletho-news/seeking-new-clues-cancer-risks-atom-bomb-tests

 

[Dmytry]

Hrmm. If this is true, then wow...

I still think it's closer to 50k..100k . The studies that estimate it at 50k...100k are based on standard, accepted constants.

But I also think how do I know that the LNT 's constant, derived from huge doses, is correct at low doses? What if there is a repair function, that has activation threshold, and the high doses which we can do statistics at, are above the threshold, while the population doses from e.g. Chernobyl are largely below threshold. (The biological defence responses often have thresholds just like that - inflammation, vomiting if poisoned, immune system works like this, etc. Vomiting is also the defence response for the radiation, even though it does not help any)
Then there's that problem... small fraction of population is much more radio-sensitive. Acute effects at 0.3 Sieverts. What if the effects in some sub population already start to saturate at the high doses? That would also mean that the coefficient is under-estimate.

The LNT the way it is used, is certainly not the most conservative model... as far as policy goes it is actually very permissive.
And if we look back at the history, the dangers are typically under-estimated, slowly converging towards reality, from below.

Also, btw. I personally am more concerned about chemical stuff. There's so many novel chemicals that we are getting exposed to, vast majority of them harmless - but some are bound to be carcinogenic. Radiation is easier to test for, that makes it safer.

 

[andybwell]

An interview with Akira Tokuhiro in the Huffington Post. Akira Tokuhiro is professor of mechanical and nuclear engineering for the University of Idaho, was born in Tokyo, Japan, but now works in the Center for Advanced Energy Studies in Idaho Falls. Akira has more than 20 years of experience in nuclear engineering and has been closely monitoring the situation in Japan following that country’s devastating earthquake and tsunami.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-norris-de-montaigu/interview-with-akira-toku_b_863297.html

 

[andybwell]

New close up video of the Fukushima "nuclear waste dump".
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/new-video-of-japanese-nuclear-plant/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[andybwell]

Kyoto U. nuclear professor: "Much more serious than I envisioned — We’re in uncharted territory for first time ever since humans started using nuclear power "

http://enenews.com/kyoto-nuclear-professor-serious-situation-envisioned-uncharted-

 

[andybwell]

Nearly 5,000 nuke plant workers suffering internal radiation exposure after ‘visiting’ Fukushima — Local gov’t to consider testing residents

http://enenews.com/5000-nuke-plant-workers-suffering-internal-radiation-exposure-after-visiting-fukushima-local-govt-consider-testing-residents

 

[andybwell]

U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant

United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=2&hp

 

[Borek]

U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant

United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=2&hp

This is from the beginning of April, mostly irrelevant as of today.

 

[andybwell]

Perhaps you should check up what's currently happening before plastering that sort of thing and making wild statements about being in trouble. It serves no purpose than fear mongering.

Japan's Tepco confirms meltdowns of 2 more Fukushima reactors (this happened back on March 13 by the way!).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/japan-tepco-reactors-idUSL3E7GO03B20110524

 

[jlduh]

Just a remark:

1) having in mind the impact on US citizens of the TMI accident when it was developping on a day by day basis

2) having in mind that TMI was one partly molten reactor in an intact containment (and a relatively small quantity of radioactivity released outside)

3) having in mind the fact that we have at Fukushima THREE molten cores in BROKEN CONTAINMENTS just a few weeks before the beginning of the TAIPHOONS season (a scenario most of nuclear specialists or pro-nuclears woudn't like to only imagine or dream in their worst nightmares some months ago, let's recognize it!)

4) having in mind the fact that a total of almost SEVEN other cores are at risk in the SFPs in case of degradation of the situation (new earthquake for example, but also typhoons...)

5) having in mind the fact that based on the recent events, a lot of the nuke plants in Japan revealed the limits of their safety designs from tsunami standpoint and maybe (we will see the conclusions) earthquake standpoint

i think the answer of the initial question "Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?" can be quite easily reevaluated, especially for US citizens who experienced TMI period...

For me this is kind of crystal clear, especially if i was living in Japan in the areas around.

 

[jlduh]

"5) having in mind the fact that based on the recent events, a lot of the nuke plants in Japan revealed the limits of their safety designs from tsunami standpoint and maybe (we will see the conclusions) earthquake standpoint"

"It could very well be that Tepco is rushing to conclude that the tsunami is to blame to prevent further questions and give more momentum to the nuclear camp. It's not just Tepco, it's the whole nuclear industry, maybe business circles as a whole. It's highly political," said Sophia University's Nakano."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/uk-japan-tepco-reactors-idUKTRE74N0NE20110524?type=companyNews

Well, at the beginning of Gunderson's video above, he is saying :we know that n°1 reactor was already in course of meltdown and the containment was leaking before tsunami hit...

Is this supported by some statements or data or facts?

By the way, how would you describe the defects he is showing (holes, cracks, etc.)?

Personnaly, threatening may be an adequate word.

 

[andybwell]

This is relevant today and into the future:

The Implications of the Fukushima Accident on the World's Operating Reactors.

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/implications-fukushima-accident-worlds-operating-reactors

By the way Arnie Gundersens analysis appears to have been accurate throughout this ongoing nuclear tragedy.

http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

 

[zapperzero]

By the way Arnie Gundersens analysis appears to have been accurate throughout this ongoing nuclear tragedy.

http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

Somewhat. The idea of recriticality in spent fuel pools is still up in the air, close to being discarded, in fact.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Somewhat. The idea of recriticality in spent fuel pools is still up in the air, close to being discarded, in fact.

Still the levels of iodine 131 found in SFP4, that are an important part of Arnie Gundersen analysys, keep on puzzling me...

I do not recall in this moment any credible alternative explanation, but for a possible error from TEPCO, that IF is actuall the case, cannot be sinlged out as a responsability from Arnie.

For what is worth I find he has been consistent, clear and accurate most of the times, yet I see him often criticised in this forum

 

[andybwell]

Still the levels of iodine 131 found in SFP4, that are an important part of Arnie Gundersen analysys, keep on puzzling me...

I do not recall in this moment any credible alternative explanation, but for a possible error from TEPCO, that IF is actuall the case, cannot be sinlged out as a responsability from Arnie.

For what is worth I find he has been consistent, clear and accurate most of the times, yet I see him often criticised in this forum

I agree. If another source of educated, timely, honest and forthright analysis is available elsewhere, I would really appreciate a link.

 

[clancy688]

Still the levels of iodine 131 found in SFP4, that are an important part of Arnie Gundersen analysys, keep on puzzling me...

I do not recall in this moment any credible alternative explanation, but for a possible error from TEPCO, that IF is actuall the case, cannot be sinlged out as a responsability from Arnie.

Back in the main thread, NUCENG calculated that the measured I131 levels for SFP #4 are well within possible range of just little fuel damage and no recriticality.
I'll search for the post.

Here it is:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3254871&postcount=4200 (with a little calculation mistake)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3255472&postcount=4265 & https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3255475&postcount=4266 (mistake corrected by another user)

 

[desertlabs]

Does anyone have any impressions of today's Fukushima live feed?

 

[desertlabs]

"Well, at the beginning of Gunderson's video above, he is saying :we know that n°1 reactor was already in course of meltdown and the containment was leaking before tsunami hit...

Is this supported by some statements or data or facts? "

"A radiation alarm went off at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima nuclear power plant before the tsunami hit on March 11"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/fukushima-may-have-leaked-radiation-before-quake.html

Might be interesting to know what the radiation readings were at that time.

 

[desertlabs]

This is from the beginning of April, mostly irrelevant as of today.

It is an "old" article, however, the conclusions were prophetic and, as far as I know, nothing stated has been factually challenged.

 

[andybwell]

It all depends upon the amount of further contamination of the planet. I do not know what normal background radiation was in 1940, but I am willing to bet that it is higher now than it was then.

Any amount of radiation can cause cancer to start growing in your body. Usually very low doses like a chest X-ray are dismissed as not causative; but, the reality is that your next X-ray could start a cancer growing in your body. We just do not know when the radiation can cause that type of damage. One thing we do know is that if we receive increasing doses, we increase the potential for Cancer to grow.

SO, people have a good reason to be afraid of any additional radioactive pollution to the planet. By being proactive, the life you save may be your Great Great Grandchild's.

"Stochastic effects are those that occur by chance. Stochastic effects caused by
ionizing radiation consist primarily of genetic effects and cancer. As the dose to an
individual increases, the probability that cancer or a genetic effect will occur also
increases. However, at no time, even for high doses, is it certain that cancer or
genetic damage will result. Similarly, for stochastic effects, there is no threshold
dose below which it is relatively certain that an adverse effect cannot occur."

Truly terrifying.

http://140.194.76.129/publications/e...5-1-80/c-3.pdf

 

[jlduh]

As a direct consequence of the Fukushima disaster, Angela Merkel just announced today that Germany is going to definitively shutdown its 17 nuclear reactors in the next 11 years: 14 before 2021, and the 3 most recent ones in 2022.

Recent polls show that 60 per cent of Germans wanted to shutdown all 17 nuclear plants in the country, with 70 per cent fearful that a Japanese-style disaster could happen in Germany.

http://www.therecord.com/news/world/article/539928--germany-announces-plan-to-shut-down-all-nuclear-power-plants-by-2022

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-to-shut-nuclear-reactors

This decision is today a big subject here in France as you can imagine (France being a strong promoter of nuclear industries!).

 

[Luca Bevil]

As a direct consequence of the Fukushima disaster, Angela Merkel just announced today that Germany is going to definitively shutdown its 17 nuclear reactors in the next 11 years: 14 before 2021, and the 3 most recent ones in 2022.

Recent polls show that 60 per cent of Germans wanted to shutdown all 17 nuclear plants in the country, with 70 per cent fearful that a Japanese-style disaster could happen in Germany.

http://www.therecord.com/news/world/article/539928--germany-announces-plan-to-shut-down-all-nuclear-power-plants-by-2022

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-to-shut-nuclear-reactors

Although less significant I may add that in Italy the berlusconi government is withdrawing the preliminary laws that would have enabled nuclear installations in Italy.

Far from being a clear statement in one direction this move was done to prevent a popular referendum consultation.

however 2 weeks ago a similar referendum was held in Sardinia (the italian administrative region corresponding to the phisical island has special administrative status) and the result was a staggering 97,5% of people voting AGAINST the possibility of installing nuclear power plants.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Might be interesting to know what the radiation readings were at that time.

In an article I read earlier, the Japanese covered the potential answer to that question by telling us that most of the radiation detectors at the Fukushima site went down along with the commercial power at the time of the Earthquake. Unless they tell us what radiation monitoring equipment was functioning with the (supposedly eight hours worth of) battery provided power at the site, we probably will not know "what happened when" until a board of inquiry does its thing in a few years. Even at that time, what we will know will be what they have told us.