The Fukushima Disaster
Guest avatarLoginRegisterLost password


New reply
Home
 
  • 242 Votes - 3.76 Average
The Fukushima Disaster
Author Message
11-07-2012 11:05 PM#1081
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-07-2012 07:50 AM)Casual Bystander Wrote:  Why is this a disaster thread???

TEPCO (the Japanese power company) did an outstanding job of containing nuclear reactors that had gone uncooled for 24 hours.

The brave TEPCO employees who brought the reactors to a cold status should be praised for their courage and perseverance in the face of adversity.

We should celebrate their success. They contained the radioactivity so successfully that more people were lost in the evacuation of Fukushima than would have been lost if they had stayed.


The disaster here is with Japan's government and the people who run TEPCO, not to mention the contamination of people and land. We really don't know what's going on there...now do we?
11-08-2012 02:30 AM#1082
Casual BystanderIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-07-2012 11:05 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-07-2012 07:50 AM)Casual Bystander Wrote:  Why is this a disaster thread???

TEPCO (the Japanese power company) did an outstanding job of containing nuclear reactors that had gone uncooled for 24 hours.

The brave TEPCO employees who brought the reactors to a cold status should be praised for their courage and perseverance in the face of adversity.

We should celebrate their success. They contained the radioactivity so successfully that more people were lost in the evacuation of Fukushima than would have been lost if they had stayed.


The disaster here is with Japan's government and the people who run TEPCO, not to mention the contamination of people and land. We really don't know what's going on there...now do we?



It is paranoia to believe that just because we don't know what the little critters are doing, they are doing something wrong.

I have a lot of respect for the Japanese. Their consistency, dedication, and attention to detail, in my opinion are superior to Americans. Back when I was working on mainframes the Japanese had 6 times better up time on the same units.

TEPCO got handed an excrement sandwich and they are trying to get rid of it as fast as possible.

They took reactors that were uncooled for 24 hours and brought them under control. If the reactors had been in the US we probably would have a couple of smoking holes.

They are doing their best and we should be supportive.
11-08-2012 02:42 AM#1083
OctoMother Superior
Posts: 42,254Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
We're all supportive of the people of Japan or anywhere, but corporate greed looks the same everywhere.

shït sandwich? TEPCO should have been prepared. shït happens even in Japan.

Quote: Emerging evidence shows that a tsunami like the one that
overwhelmed the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March could happen
once every 1,000 years or less, said George Apostolakis, one of
three Democrats on the five-member Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

That kind of frequency would be unacceptable for U.S.
plants not to be prepared for and it showed the plant was not
adequately designed to protect against events that were within
the realm of probability, Apostolakis said.

"This focus on the unthinkable is really misplaced. It was
not unthinkable at all," Apostolakis said in a speech at the
Bipartisan Policy Center.

He said not enough people have yet acknowledged the issue
that the plant should been better secured. "This is the kind of
secret that everybody knows but nobody wants to say anything
about."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/0...1Y20110803
11-08-2012 03:27 AM#1084
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-08-2012 02:42 AM)Octo Wrote:  We're all supportive of the people of Japan or anywhere, but corporate greed looks the same everywhere.

shït sandwich? TEPCO should have been prepared. shït happens even in Japan.

Quote: Emerging evidence shows that a tsunami like the one that
overwhelmed the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March could happen
once every 1,000 years or less, said George Apostolakis, one of
three Democrats on the five-member Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

That kind of frequency would be unacceptable for U.S.
plants not to be prepared for and it showed the plant was not
adequately designed to protect against events that were within
the realm of probability, Apostolakis said.

"This focus on the unthinkable is really misplaced. It was
not unthinkable at all," Apostolakis said in a speech at the
Bipartisan Policy Center.

He said not enough people have yet acknowledged the issue
that the plant should been better secured. "This is the kind of
secret that everybody knows but nobody wants to say anything
about."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/0...1Y20110803


Don't know what response you want. The reactors are placed near water sources so that a cooling tower isn't needed. Being near a water source is good as long as the water source is well behaved.

Won't defend simple stupidity. The emergency generators should have been at least as well protected as the power plant.

Don't like pressurized water reactors anyway - dumb design. Metal can with radioactive material at 2200 PSI is not ideal. LFTR is much better reactor concept. Much more efficient, produces 50% less waste heat. No water and unpressurized failsafe reactor.
11-08-2012 03:39 AM#1085
OctoMother Superior
Posts: 42,254Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Point is, when you run a business that deals with technology with substances with a half-life of up to 250 000 years, some more, some less. Shouldn't you in your risk evaluation include events that occur every 1000 years or less and construct it for that possibility? Especially when you build a nuclear power plant where 3 tectonic plates converge. My guess is no, it's too expensive.

Welcome to the forum btw. cheers.gif
11-08-2012 03:49 AM#1086
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-08-2012 02:30 AM)Casual Bystander Wrote:  
(11-07-2012 11:05 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-07-2012 07:50 AM)Casual Bystander Wrote:  Why is this a disaster thread???

TEPCO (the Japanese power company) did an outstanding job of containing nuclear reactors that had gone uncooled for 24 hours.

The brave TEPCO employees who brought the reactors to a cold status should be praised for their courage and perseverance in the face of adversity.

We should celebrate their success. They contained the radioactivity so successfully that more people were lost in the evacuation of Fukushima than would have been lost if they had stayed.

The disaster here is with Japan's government and the people who run TEPCO, not to mention the contamination of people and land. We really don't know what's going on there...now do we?



It is paranoia to believe that just because we don't know what the little critters are doing, they are doing something wrong.

I have a lot of respect for the Japanese. Their consistency, dedication, and attention to detail, in my opinion are superior to Americans. Back when I was working on mainframes the Japanese had 6 times better up time on the same units.

TEPCO got handed an excrement sandwich and they are trying to get rid of it as fast as possible.

They took reactors that were uncooled for 24 hours and brought them under control. If the reactors had been in the US we probably would have a couple of smoking holes.

They are doing their best and we should be supportive.


But they were doing wrong as it has been deemed by the Japanese scientists - that this disaster could have been avoided.

I am supportive of the protestors in Japan trying to shut down all nuclear plants and create a healthy future for their children.
11-08-2012 03:57 AM#1087
JayRodneyⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts: 30,601Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
iagree.gif THIS
Not just in Japan, but everywhere.

wonder.gif
11-08-2012 04:15 AM#1088
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-08-2012 03:39 AM)Octo Wrote:  Point is, when you run a business that deals with technology with substances with a half-life of up to 250 000 years, some more, some less. Shouldn't you in your risk evaluation include events that occur every 1000 years or less and construct it for that possibility? Especially when you build a nuclear power plant where 3 tectonic plates converge. My guess is no, it's too expensive.

Welcome to the forum btw. cheers.gif


435 Reactors, 14,897 Reactor operating years, one serious Tsunami accident. The death rate from conventional power plants is considered to be in the thousands per year. The death rate from this accident to the Fukushima community if they stayed is estimated to be less than one hundred. The evacuation killed more than that. They should have stayed.

It wasn't too expensive. They just didn't think the problem through. In most engineering situations you hire experienced engineers, because experience is painful and you don't want it to happen on your project. Current reactors are better because some of the earlier ones weren't.

The half life of U235 is 703.8 million years, the half life of Xenon 133 is 5.2 days, the half-life of Iodine 131 is 8 days. By the time the reactors were under control all the Xenon and Iodine that had been released was gone.

Thank you for the welcome.
cheers.gif
11-08-2012 07:09 PM#1089
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Quote:

Reporters Without Borders reveals that freelance journalists are often discriminated against in Japan which they say is not only illegal under Japan’s own laws, but also violates freedom of information.

http://japandailypress.com/tag/journalism

sad2.gif
11-08-2012 08:08 PM#1090
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-08-2012 07:09 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Quote:

Reporters Without Borders reveals that freelance journalists are often discriminated against in Japan which they say is not only illegal under Japan’s own laws, but also violates freedom of information.

http://japandailypress.com/tag/journalism

sad2.gif


Three freelance journalists have lodged a complaint at a Tokyo regional court to be allowed access to the National Diet (Japan's parliament) building.
Not sure the title of the story is accurate.

The protests take place across the street from the Diet. The reporters are allowed across the street from the Diet. They can take all the pictures they want and talk to whoever they want, unhindered. Yet the reporters want access to the Diet (congress building) to report on protests across the street.

There is a official reporter pool in the Diet and the freelance journalists aren't part of the reporting pool.

This doesn't make sense. This story is incomplete. My guess is they are looking for an excuse to force admittance to the official reporting pool, and since everyone views them as annoying gadflies it isn't going to happen.
11-08-2012 08:27 PM#1091
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
They and Japanese freelanceers face censorship and discrimination, was my point.

Foreign reporters also describe strict controls over photography through the entire process, concerns that have been echoed by Japanese freelancers.

http://www.japanfocus.org/events/view/150
11-08-2012 09:58 PM#1092
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-08-2012 08:27 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  They and Japanese freelanceers face censorship and discrimination, was my point.

Foreign reporters also describe strict controls over photography through the entire process, concerns that have been echoed by Japanese freelancers.

http://www.japanfocus.org/events/view/150


"Sigh", you keep making me read and analyze things...

Some background.
1. The reactors are currently down to room temperature.
2. Claims of dangerous radioactivity in Hawaii or California are simply wrong.
3. Cesium 131 is an exponential radioactive poison and you need high levels to cause harm, unlike Iodine 131 which is linear and harm ramps with the dose.
4. Reactor 4 has some issues with the spent fuel pool that need addressing.
5. Except for a plume shaped area most of the exclusion zone is safe. I'd eat any of the cattle wandering around the area.
6. There seems to be a constant Cesium level offshore so they should really get the reactors mothballed as soon as possible.
7. The Tsunami killed 15,861 people. The casualties from the Fukushima plant are projected to be about 0.6% (0.006) of the total casualties. Many of the 15,861 died for more blameworthy reasons than Fukushima Dai-ichi
8. Dai-ichi is #1, Dai-ni or #2 the other facility is preparing to spin up reactors 3 & 4 and is has mostly completed some minor work on 1 & 2.
9. It isn't clear if reactors 5 & 6 will be put back online after the mothballing.

Now the purpose of the reporters is to agitate against nuclear power and portray massive public sentiment against nuclear power, with the hopes of shutting down nuclear power plants. This is wrong headed and unwise, but we will skip that for the moment. It is not in TEPCO's interest to aid and abet these reporters.

TEPCO is on the clock. Some of their workers are getting significant doses and unnecessary exposure delays the work and causes staffing problems. They really are trying to bring this to a close and mothball the reactors as expeditiously as possible. Allowing weekly tours of the facility with cameras and analysis gear so reporters can prick the Japanese conscious and keep it in the news is somewhere between delusional and insane.

TEPCO has been as public and cooperative as they can while staying focused on the task at hand.

Having said that - I don't know why they won't let the independents have cameras. As long as the independents agree to stay with the tour and keep up there is no real reason they shouldn't have some equipment and cameras. The staff that do decontamination aren't critical to the reactor shutdown effort.

If I was paranoid or suspicious I would say that there is something that TEPCO doesn't want the independents to video. But since TEPCO is an honest public utility I am going to assume it is for logistical reasons.
11-10-2012 02:23 AM#1093
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
May I suggest you read all the posts of this thread from 1 onwards, so that you analysis will not be flawed. 13.gif
11-10-2012 04:51 AM#1094
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-10-2012 02:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  May I suggest you read all the posts of this thread from 1 onwards, so that you analysis will not be flawed. 13.gif


I actually took a nucleonics course in college, I'm not guessing.

Unique, you seem to be a very thoughtful person and have issues with my posts.

If you can express your concerns I will try meeting you halfway.
11-10-2012 06:47 PM#1095
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-10-2012 04:51 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-10-2012 02:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  May I suggest you read all the posts of this thread from 1 onwards, so that you analysis will not be flawed. 13.gif


I actually took a nucleonics course in college, I'm not guessing.

Unique, you seem to be a very thoughtful person and have issues with my posts.

If you can express your concerns I will try meeting you halfway.


The only issue is that I think your analysis is flawed. Otherwise, feel free to post whatever you desire and I will as well. It's all good.
11-10-2012 06:49 PM#1096
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
11-10-2012 08:46 PM#1097
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-10-2012 06:49 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  TEPCO worried about profits.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaste...1211100044


Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (2% of world nuclear generation) was already shutdown by a previous earthquake but was getting spun up when the Tsunami hit. The facility is in good order and should be put online. The facility was actually shutdown by TEPCO out of almost excessive caution.

40% of TEPCOs base power generation was nuclear. Since they have to provide the power using other sources, they are carrying the plant and plant repair costs as well as the additional replacement power generation costs. This is why they aren't currently in their "happy place".

Japan has few natural resources and without nuclear power will have some real competitiveness issues. Naomi Hirose needs to grow a pair and find a way to get Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, and Fukushima Dai-ni online, if not he should be replaced.
11-11-2012 03:31 PM#1098
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
damned.gif


Quote: Japan's only working nuclear power plant sits on what may be a seismic fault in the earth's crust, a geologist has warned, saying it is "very silly" to allow it to continue operating.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/a...62/1/.html
11-11-2012 06:13 PM#1099
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-11-2012 03:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  damned.gif


Quote: Japan's only working nuclear power plant sits on what may be a seismic fault in the earth's crust, a geologist has warned, saying it is "very silly" to allow it to continue operating.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/a...62/1/.html


"Mitsuhisa Watanabe says the earth's plates could move under the Oi nuclear plant in western Japan, causing a catastrophe to rival last year's atomic disaster at Fukushima -- although some of his colleagues on a nuclear advisory panel disagree.

"It is an active fault. The plates shifted some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago for sure," Watanabe, of Tokyo's Toyo University, told AFP."


120000 years ago. Hmmm. Statistically this concern would rank right up there with requiring plants be resistant to asteroid strikes.

I worked with one the El Diablo design engineers and they put a lot of work into making the core assembly earthquake resistance. Proper design and dampening of the 90 tonnes or so of fuel load (the core) is the primary concern.

As a side issue - no serious nuclear accident (that I am aware of) has resulted from earthquake. To this point it is operator error 2 and tsunami 1. Earthquake hasn't scored yet but has made numerous shots on goal.
11-11-2012 06:23 PM#1100
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-11-2012 06:13 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-11-2012 03:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  damned.gif


Quote: Japan's only working nuclear power plant sits on what may be a seismic fault in the earth's crust, a geologist has warned, saying it is "very silly" to allow it to continue operating.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/a...62/1/.html


"Mitsuhisa Watanabe says the earth's plates could move under the Oi nuclear plant in western Japan, causing a catastrophe to rival last year's atomic disaster at Fukushima -- although some of his colleagues on a nuclear advisory panel disagree.

"It is an active fault. The plates shifted some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago for sure," Watanabe, of Tokyo's Toyo University, told AFP."


120000 years ago? Really? Seriously? It is more of a passive fault than an active fault. Statistically this concern would rank right up there with requiring plants be resistant to asteroid strikes.

As a side issue - no serious nuclear accident (that I am aware of) has resulted from earthquake. To this point it is operator error 2 and tsunami 1. Earthquake hasn't scored yet but has made numerous shots on goal.


Quote:

Shimazaki has said the definition of active faults should be broadened to include those that have shifted during the past 400,000 years.

Experts are hard-pressed to identify when fault movements occurred, partly because of an inherent difficulty in assessing geological faults and a dearth of evidence.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaste...1211030057

There will be another report in December.

Also...

Quote:

The government's guideline on building nuclear facilities to withstand earthquakes says no key component of a plant should be built directly above an active fault.

13.gif
11-11-2012 07:32 PM#1101
OctoMother Superior
Posts: 42,254Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
There is no doubt in my mind that Fukushima is an epic disaster. When we're dealing with substances that stay with us for that long they should take into account any disaster scenario that could possibly occur despite being on a fault line or not. They're currently building the 5th nuclear reactor here in Finland. The Fukushima accident caused them to go back to the drawing board to include backup systems to the backup systems which I guess is a good thing. Another nuclear plant was planned pretty close to us here on the West coast, but just a few weeks ago one major investor pulled out of the project. Thankfully.

Also under construction here is the world's first permanent nuclear waste repository. The bedrock here is among the oldest in the world
so it makes sense to build it here. There are however no guarantees the bedrock will stay stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm against nuclear power in general. It's not as clean as the industry wants us to believe. What's not being talked about is the uranium mining that's extremely dirty business. Finland imports uranium mainly from Africa and Canada and I had an old guy call me once, he was a retired engineer, as feedback on an article I had published in the local paper. He told me he had actually visited a uranium mine in Angola and witnessed the absolutely horrendous conditions. The workers generally don't live past 30.

As long as profit trumps over human well-being we'll never see any efforts to come up with a cheap and safe energy source. Sadly.
11-11-2012 08:20 PM#1102
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-11-2012 07:32 PM)Octo Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that Fukushima is an epic disaster. When we're dealing with substances that stay with us for that long they should take into account any disaster scenario that could possibly occur despite being on a fault line or not. They're currently building the 5th nuclear reactor here in Finland. The Fukushima accident caused them to go back to the drawing board to include backup systems to the backup systems which I guess is a good thing. Another nuclear plant was planned pretty close to us here on the West coast, but just a few weeks ago one major investor pulled out of the project. Thankfully.

Also under construction here is the world's first permanent nuclear waste repository. The bedrock here is among the oldest in the world
so it makes sense to build it here. There are however no guarantees the bedrock will stay stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm against nuclear power in general. It's not as clean as the industry wants us to believe. What's not being talked about is the uranium mining that's extremely dirty business. Finland imports uranium mainly from Africa and Canada and I had an old guy call me once, he was a retired engineer, as feedback on an article I had published in the local paper. He told me he had actually visited a uranium mine in Angola and witnessed the absolutely horrendous conditions. The workers generally don't live past 30.

As long as profit trumps over human well-being we'll never see any efforts to come up with a cheap and safe energy source. Sadly.


Yes, a very dirty business. sad2.gif

11-12-2012 03:54 AM#1103
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-11-2012 08:20 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-11-2012 07:32 PM)Octo Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that Fukushima is an epic disaster. When we're dealing with substances that stay with us for that long they should take into account any disaster scenario that could possibly occur despite being on a fault line or not. They're currently building the 5th nuclear reactor here in Finland. The Fukushima accident caused them to go back to the drawing board to include backup systems to the backup systems which I guess is a good thing. Another nuclear plant was planned pretty close to us here on the West coast, but just a few weeks ago one major investor pulled out of the project. Thankfully.

Also under construction here is the world's first permanent nuclear waste repository. The bedrock here is among the oldest in the world
so it makes sense to build it here. There are however no guarantees the bedrock will stay stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm against nuclear power in general. It's not as clean as the industry wants us to believe. What's not being talked about is the uranium mining that's extremely dirty business. Finland imports uranium mainly from Africa and Canada and I had an old guy call me once, he was a retired engineer, as feedback on an article I had published in the local paper. He told me he had actually visited a uranium mine in Angola and witnessed the absolutely horrendous conditions. The workers generally don't live past 30.

As long as profit trumps over human well-being we'll never see any efforts to come up with a cheap and safe energy source. Sadly.


Yes, a very dirty business. sad2.gif

http://soundcloud.com/fightpollution/int...icott#play


"Sigh" you guys seem sweet and well intended and I don't care about the issue other than being factually accurate. The green people really frustrate me. The pollution we are creating in China for solar cells and windmills and the transportation to the US probably equals the pollution and side effects we are saving here. Saying it is "clean energy" is incompletely informed. All these intermittent power sources require a 100% back up. The total pollution footprint is that total system+backup manufacture, shipping, erectïon, and operation footprint.

The greens have turned China into a sewer and seem fairly proud of it.

It is debatable if you are saving anything.

A final word on the "mining" issue. We can't make windmill generators in this country because the EPA won't let us mine the rare earths needed. There is some dirt to manufacturing silicon solar cells as well. Nothing you build is clean. Our squeaky clean EPA regulations are a large part of what has driven US manufacturing overseas.
11-12-2012 03:58 AM#1104
OctoMother Superior
Posts: 42,254Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-12-2012 03:54 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  "Sigh" you guys seem sweet and well intended and I don't care about the issue other than being factually accurate.


Cute fatman.gif
11-12-2012 04:02 AM#1105
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-12-2012 03:58 AM)Octo Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 03:54 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  "Sigh" you guys seem sweet and well intended and I don't care about the issue other than being factually accurate.


Cute fatman.gif


Yes, you are cute Mr. Sigh. facepalm_panda.gif
11-12-2012 05:33 AM#1106
OctoMother Superior
Posts: 42,254Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif
11-12-2012 08:08 PM#1107
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-12-2012 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif
11-13-2012 04:00 AM#1108
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-12-2012 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).
11-13-2012 05:41 AM#1109
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-13-2012 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.
11-14-2012 03:01 AM#1110
オタマジャクシMember
Posts: 1,366Joined: Nov 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(11-13-2012 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.

Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.
New reply
Home





Free TopSite


DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS)

Kritterbox.com - Current events, paranormal, UFO, conspiracy, politics, ancient lost treasure, ancient technology, tech, music and more! This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site. This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental. All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception. No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com. Fair Use Notice:This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion. Copyright © 20011 - 2016 kritterbox.com