Fukushima Technical Discussion

[WhiteBlue]

Having ten thousands of tons of radioactive water to dispose of is obviously the result of having lost control of the reactors and fuel pools. It was obvious from the begin that this water was not brought into a closed system but into ruins of reactors and fuel pools that cannot hold the water that is pumped in. This is true for at least the #2 reactor and fuel pools #3 and #4. So technically educated people have been seeing this happening weeks ago.

Dumping out of control radioactivity into the sea is part of the calculation that makes people build nuclear reactors near the sea in the first place. So it is no great surprise that it happens when control is lost in an accident of the scale we see in Fukushima.

The alternative to dumping water with radioactive iodine and caesium into the pacific is not using water to cool the molten fuel in the damaged reactors and pools. That would add large amounts of strontium, uranium and plutonium to the airborne radioactivity load. Nobody contemplates that.

Without doubt the dumping will do some damage to the sea food industry on the Pacific north coast of Honshu, but the consequences of the alternatives would be much greater. What TEPCO and the crisis management are doing now is only the logical consequence of the nuclear safety strategy that was applied to Fukushima and other NPPs in the past.

IMO the important point is to realize that and change the policies. NPPs must be protected against the maximum thinkable risk from natural and civilization sources. On top the residual risk must be insured at the level of the likely cost of an accident.

[manchild]

so where should they put the water?

They should have thought about that before they've filled it in! Right?

That's the problem, you see - they've built the NPP but never thought about dealing with problems. Not just them, every single NPP in the world has no adequate counter-measures for critical situations. If they are under control they are safe, if they aren't under control than people inevitably get ill and die, nature becomes polluted, children are being born with abnormalities etc.

Their current actions equal panic child's play. On top of that, everything was based on their belief that something Japanse built is perfect and untouchable. There are many sources about this philosophy they stuck with while building and maintaining their NPP, even the former chief of Japan nuclear agency laboratory said the same.


Regarding WB's "Without doubt the dumping will do some damage to the sea food industry on the Pacific north coast of Honshu"

That's just simply not local. Many species of fish and sea mammals migrate in regular cycles, depending on time of the year and mating season, and water evaporates into clouds that are raining globally.


BTW, someone recently mentioned that in Chernobyl they've used liquidators, people who were unaware of what they are being exposed to, and wondered what will happen when "Fukushima 50" team gets unwell and starts dying.

"U.S. Firm Recruits For Possible Work At Fukushima"
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/130364/2 ... ushima.htm

Chance of the lifetime Pup, 1.737.765 $ annually. Since you say NPP are safe, I thought I should pass this add as a great job opportunity.


Big business can buy anything and anyone, at least it hopes so. In previous article it is mention that Japanese gov. has already offered 4700 $ (3300 eurs) per day for those willing to liquidate Fukushima (and get liquidated).

Than one reads this report of IAEA:

"Chernobyl's 700,000 "Liquidators" struggle with psychological and social consequences"
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features ... tors.shtml

[forty-two]

so where should they put the water?

They should have thought about that before they've filled it in! Right?

That's the problem, you see - they've built the NPP but never thought about dealing with problems.

Absolutely right in my opinion. If you give a kid a box of matches to play with, inevitably they'll probably end up burning the house down.

If they are under control they are safe, ...

I completely disagree with this statement. EVEN when they're working as designed there is still no real permanent solution for what to do with the waste. All they seem able to do is bury it in the ground (including here in the UK at sellafield), but that's a problem brewing for future generations.

... That's just simply not local. Many species of fish and sea mammals migrate in regular cycles, depending on time of the year and mating season, and water evaporates into clouds that are raining globally.

Don't forget about ocean currents. That should be able to distribute the more long-lived radionuclides all over the globe, with the possible exception of some smaller seas such as the Baltic, but as you hinted, the rain cycle should see to those areas!

Don't get me wrong Manchild, I agree with your sentiments, but I think it's important to point out the above.

As for the "melting through the earth" question, it was an idea well publicised by a book and then a film called the "China syndrome", released just prior to the Three Mile Island "accident". The idea was that a runaway reaction could happn which would melt through the earth and not stop until it reached China. Scientists have since debunked the theory (rightly in my opinion, even if the reaction could keep going long enough, and gravity were pulling the mass toward the centre of the earth, it would not keep going when it got there.) positing that the heat contained in the reaction would be dissipated as it met with new rock.

To be honest though, I don't know if the scientists in question were discussing such an event taking place in such a seismically volatile area. And, the "Scientists" are forever telling us that Nuclear power is safe!

[manchild]

42, when I wrote that they are safe while they are under control, I was ridiculing that kind of safety.


Just found this among the latest news, saying that periodic chain reaction occurs at Fukushima unit 1

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4xQEaT2a0o[/youtube]

http://vimeo.com/21881702

[WhiteBlue]

Just found this among the latest news, saying that periodic chain reaction occurs at Fukushima unit 1

Yeah, that info has been around since Sunday. As Gunderson said it means that TEPCO needs to add boron to the cooling in unit #1. Hopefully the containment of #1 is intact and hopefully the partially molten core can be controlled by the pumps of the plant. The shame is that all the significant negative info always come from outside and never from TEPCO.

[forty-two]

The shame is that all the significant negative info always come from outside and never from TEPCO.

I agree, TEPCO should indeed feel ashamed by this, but I fear that this was always likely to be the case. And I doubt that TEPCO are the only such organisation who would behave in this fashion under the same circumstances. That doesn't excuse it though.

[forty-two]

42, when I wrote that they are safe while they are under control, I was ridiculing that kind of safety.

Sorry manchild. Just me being as dense as a lead block there!

[Richard]

Just me being as dense as a lead block there!

An advantage is that your head has inbuilt radiation protection!

[marekk]

As a last resort of defense, regulators are obliged to have working evacuation plan in the event of radioactive elements release.

I'm wondering, how many people live in 50 mile radius (as ordered for US citizens in Fukushima case) of lets say Indian Point or Isar ?

[forty-two]

Just me being as dense as a lead block there!

An advantage is that your head has inbuilt radiation protection!

That was kind of my point...

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 28/1/.html

On Tuesday, government chief spokesman Yukio Edano announced a legal limit of 2,000 becquerels per kilogram for radioactive iodine in seafood, the first time such restriction for fish.

"The government has decided to temporarily adopt the same limit as for vegetables," he told a press conference.

The move came after radioactive iodine of more than double that concentration was detected in a variety of small fish known as konago, or sand lance, caught off Ibaraki, south of the plant.

Fishing of the species was stopped locally, reports said.

Radioactive iodine above legal limits has been detected in vegetables, dairy products and mushrooms, triggering shipping bans, but officials had said seafood was less at risk as ocean currents and tides dilute dangerous isotopes.

Fishermen in the area expressed outrage over the decision to dump radioactive water into the ocean.

"We heard radioactive material was leaking into the sea," said Yoshihiro Niizuma of the Fukushima Fisheries cooperative. "Now they are dumping contaminated water on purpose."

Seoul also questioned the decision, saying the proximity of the two neighbours made Japan's action "a pressing issue" for South Korea.

Fishing has been banned within 20 kilometres of the stricken plant, matching the radius of the evacuation zone on land, where tens of thousands of residents have been moved out.

The dumping of radioactive water into the sea has also cast concerns on the earnings of the fishery industry, and some analysts estimate TEPCO could face compensation claims of more than 10 trillion yen ($120 billion).

TEPCO last week said it had secured two trillion yen in funding but warned that this would not be enough.

The company said on Tuesday it had offered 10 municipalities in Fukushima prefecture whose residents have had to evacuate "consolation" payments of 20 million yen ($240,000), separate to future compensation.

One of them, Namie, rejected the offer, with a municipality spokeswoman saying: "The town has a population of over 20,000, so the amount to be received by each resident would be less than 1,000 yen."

The money had been refused "so that we can leave room for speaking strongly against the company," she added.

My personal estimate of the damages is between €225-1,125bn which did not include fisheries compensation so far. My estimate was just covering land based compensation claims, the fuel bill for lost electricity and the de commissioning and clean up cost of the six nuclear plants. It appears that local estimates are catching up quickly. For constrast one should know that German NPPs are insured with €2.5bn and French NPPs with €0.072bn. The obvious conclusion is that nuclear accidents are much more expensive than the regulators have made us believe. This will have a significant impact on the cost of nuclear power production as investors will have to figure the risk premiums into their investment considerations. As it looks today only communist states and dictatorships will be in a position to justify the investment into new NPPs.

[forty-two]

My personal estimate of the damages is between €225-1,125bn which did not include fisheries compensation so far. My estimate was just covering land based compensation claims, the fuel bill for lost electricity and the de commissioning and clean up cost of the six nuclear plants. It appears that local estimates are catching up quickly. For constrast one should know that German NPPs are insured with €2.5bn and French NPPs with €0.072bn. The obvious conclusion is that nuclear accidents are much more expensive than the regulators have made us believe. This will have a significant impact on the cost of nuclear power production as investors will have to figure the risk premiums into their investment considerations. As it looks today only communist states and dictatorships will be in a position to justify the investment into new NPPs.

If only the man in the street would demand that proper precautions be taken, perhaps the world would never have seen any NPPs built, except perhaps as you say in dictatorships.

I guess it's a bit late for comments like this, but I know that in south east Wales, a large oil refinery was built many years ago, not too far from the village of Rhoscrowther. Even back then, a cost analysis was undertaken prior to planning permission being granted, which investigated a "worst case" scenario of the plant suffering a total catastrophic failure resulting in the destruction of the village. The figure was calculated for how much it would cost in monetary terms to compensate the villagers, or more importantly the villagers families in the event that the village was destroyed and many lives lost, and it was considered a risk worth taking (i.e. cheaper to pay up in the event of such an accident than it would be to choose an alternative site).

Well, that cost is relatively straightforward to calculate (although I for one would struggle to put a value on a human life), at least such a site would have destructive consequences only relatively locally (buildings, human cost, plus potentially damaging oil spills into the nearby Milford Haven waterway and surrounding Atlantic coastline.

How could you calculate the cost of an incident such as Fukushima? The fact is, we all know that TEPCO will probably deny responsibility for anything which cannot be categorically proven to be a direct result of their mess. But even if they were made to pay up for all the other things, it would surely come to a figure greater than their financial reserves?

It boggles the mind just thinking about it. Perhaps sadder still that I have still not seen a properly advertised charity campaign for all the poor souls who survived the Earthquake, Tsunami, and then the Nuclear disaster? When the Boxing day tsunami hit, we were getting an advert on TV at pretty much every commercial break for weeks on end, but this time.... nothing!

[manchild]

Coupe of days ago they've claimed that radiation in the Pacific will affect only area 800 meters from the shore. Yesterday they've said that there will be no traces of radiation 30.000 meters from the shore.

In a week or two they'll be using the word Hawaii to save space for all those digits...

[autogyro]

Come on you nuclear supporters, you have gone a bit silent at the moment.
Have you got any spare cash for your 'safe' nuclear plants.
Any of you got a spare 3 trillion yen?
Pup come on man give us the benefit of your nuclear knowlege.

[Dragonfly]

The topic is way too serious for primitive challenges like the above one.
If someone feels triumphant that a disaster happened, that speaks volumes about his mentality.