rmacdon61 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 where is the radiation going? Is it blowing towards North America? My question then is, will it be safe to fly? If one looks at the air routes, they seem to fly over Japan and through the radiation cloud. Please, someone tell me I am wrong. Excellent question and of some concern as local winds have little to do with global effects of upper winds. I have to think that as people we have an overwhelming concern for the people of Japan and global impacts to people/food and environment. I believe our fates are in the hands of God and those that do their best and as a group, Japan, the situation couldn't be in better hands. I fear that many will place themselves in harms way to protect their country and the world as a whole. God bless them and the people now immediately effected. I wish there were words I could type that would make a difference, but I have no such words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Kyodo: Radioactivity 400 times normal level observed in Miyagi/RT@mpoppel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Meanwhile, this account from Reuters yesterday describing the Three Mile Island episode in the U.S. begins to sound a lot like what we are being told is happening at Fukushima Daichi 1. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania was a partial core meltdown in which the metal cladding surrounding the fuel rods started to melt. That metal surrounds the ceramic uranium fuel pellets, which hold most of the radiation and power the reactor.Nuclear reactors operate at between 550 and 600 degrees F (between 288 and 316 degrees C). The metal on the fuel rods will not melt until temperatures are well above 1000 degrees F. The ceramic uranium pellets themselves won't melt until about 2000 degrees. About half the reactor core at Three Mile Island melted before operators restored enough cooling water to stop the meltdown. The core holds the uranium fuel rods, which must be cooled by water to prevent overheating. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-nuclear-us-idUSTRE72B2UN20110312 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes.... Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants! Change "another country" to Thailand and yes you would have a catostrophic disaster. They would probably not report the event "it would be bad for tourism" In Thailand they would send an army with pat-loms (fans) to defend against nuclear radiation leakage, not to forget to consult the ghosts and fortune tellers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think TEPCO is obfuscating by deliberately confusing the order of events - a fine Japanese tradition by the way, you just have to know how to spot it. ... Haters will never miss an event to use it for their propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes.... Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants! Warning, the bearded anoraks are out! BBC just interviewed a chap with a beard and an anorak saying that this should mean no more nuclear power plants and the existing ones should be de-commissioned! No doubt we shall get some balance with an interview with a nuclear power advocate? Personally, I suspect that Mitsubishi Heavy's reactors are rather more robust than their Russian counterparts...... The bearded anoraks are the second sign of the apocalypse, I'm grabbing a tin-opener and heading for cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think TEPCO is obfuscating by deliberately confusing the order of events - a fine Japanese tradition by the way, you just have to know how to spot it. ... Haters will never miss an event to use it for their propaganda. You will get the wrong picture if some Japanese hating scaremonger brings you his selection of "news". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitterbatter Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 This is the best video report on the meltdown situation that I have found. It explains the differences to Chernobyl and what is occuring and could occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think TEPCO is obfuscating by deliberately confusing the order of events - a fine Japanese tradition by the way, you just have to know how to spot it. ... Haters will never miss an event to use it for their propaganda. I haven't created past incidents and accidents of TEPCO nor have I written the text in the quote. Look at the whole picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 So if a "bearded anorak" told you your house was on fire, you wouldn't do anything until a man in a suit told you he was right? i think your methods of how to sift information are a bit weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadianasia Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 CANDO have a fail safe system that requires no power, IE loss of power, http://canteach.candu.org/library/20053307.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View CANDU reactors are designed with two shutdown systems to provide a ... canteach.candu.org/library/20053307.pdf - However this Reactor is very expensive, and thus everyone opts for the cheaper version , thinking the day will never arrive for a accident ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Just in: NHK reports an issue at the Onagawa nuclear plant in Miyagi. Officials say radiation levels have increased./RT@ProducerMatthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Rather than dismissing stuff as "propaganda" or "bearded anoraks" some posters might want to put forward a coherent argument to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) And a recap from Reuters on the Fukushima Daichi and Daini reactors status. Seems to be saying they have been or will be releasing radioactive (at some level) steam from 6 different reactors to ease pressure associated with failed cooling systems. Interesting to note, the Fukushima Daichi 1 reactor, the one with the partial meltdown, is the smallest capacity of all those involved. Following is a list of the manufacturers and the current status of reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini plants, excluding those under planned maintenance when the quake struck. Generation capacity is shown in megawatts. Plant name / Unit / MW / Mfr / Status Fukushima-Daiichi 1 460 GE -- keeps filling with sea water [already steam vented yesterday] 2 784 GE, Toshiba -- preparing to release inner pressure 3 784 Toshiba -- started on Sunday morning to release inner pressure Fukushima-Daini 1 1,100 Toshiba -- ready for releasing inner pressure 2 1,100 Hitachi -- ready for releasing inner pressure 3 1,100 Toshiba has been safely cooled 4 1,100 Hitachi -- ready for releasing inner pressure (Source: Tokyo Electric Power as of 0320 GMT on Sunday) http://www.reuters.c...E72C0GZ20110313 Edited March 13, 2011 by jfchandler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Via Xinhua news agency.... FLASH: RISE IN RADIATION DETECTED AT ONAGAWA NUKE PLANT IN JAPAN'S MIYAGI PREFECTURE/RT@mpoppel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appropriate Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Can't imagine the global demand for Kobe beef and other J-foods will be too high for the coming years. Talk about knock on catastrophes. Edited March 13, 2011 by appropriate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Nuclear Experts Explain Worst-Case Scenario at Fukushima Power Plant The type of accident occurring now in Japan derives from a loss of offsite AC power and then a subsequent failure of emergency power on site. Engineers there are racing to restore AC power to prevent a core meltdown. By Steve Mirsky http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahmburgers Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Why does the densest seismic network in the world/such an earthquake prone area have Nuclear Reactors. Of course they need the power it supplies...but still it makes one wonder. The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Right now, everyone is fixated on Japanese reactors and the impacts of the earthquakes. Hello! Nuclear is much bigger than that. Any one or group of factors can imperil living things around a reactor. Earthquake is one of many. In Thailand, the two biggest potential problems for reactors are. >>>>> lax maintenance and/or lack of top-end technical skills - coupled with slowness to react and/or acting too rashly - to an emergency scenario. >>>>> take-over or destruction by outside group. Could be southern insurgents (that's where at least one reactor is planned), or could be a future incarnation of the Reds or some similar hot-headed group. Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, not decommissioning the plant when it should be decommissioned, peril to uranium while it makes its long trip from faraway, rising costs of yellowcake, inability or laxness toward doing proper maintenance, things getting stolen (the Thai army gets stuff stolen every month), the list goes on and on. Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Good link, LB, to Scientific American.. This excerpt sounds a lot like a description of Fukushima Daichi 1, at least up to the fission release. That's presumably how cesium and iodine got into the environment there.. Bergeron explained the basics of overheating at a nuclear fission plant. "The fuel rods are long uranium rods clad in a [zirconium alloy casing]. They're held in a cylindrical-shaped array. And the water covers all of that. If the water descends below the level of the fuel, then the temperature starts going up and the cladding bursts, releasing a lot of fission products. And eventually the core just starts slumping and melting. Quite a bit of this happened in TMI [Three Mile Island], but the pressure vessel did not fail." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer. Why? We are running out of oil and solar does not work except in a very limited way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 #Japan chief cabinet secretary says risk of explosion at building housing #Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 reactor/RT@REUTERSFLASH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 BTW, I believe I've seen reference to this, but it's not been addressed in a very direct way... At Fukushima Daichi 1 reactor, once they started pumping sea water into the containment area, I'm under the impression that means that particular reactor is toast... or... to put it more scientifically...would be unable to be returned to service in the future. It's done. Never operate again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I'm under the impression that means that particular reactor is toast... or... to put it more scientifically...would be unable to be returned to service in the future. It's done. Never operate again... That probably sums it up. The sea water would completely contaminate the fuel and container(s) and any clean up operations would probably exceed the cost of building a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 #Japan chief cabinet secretary says risk of explosion at building housing #Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 reactor/RT@REUTERSFLASH That kind of makes sense, and it may not be the last we see of that... Your Scientific American article above provided a good explanation of why... Former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) member Peter Bradford added, "The other thing that happens is that the cladding, which is just the outside of the tube, at a high enough temperature interacts with the water. It's essentially a high-speed rusting, where the zirconium becomes zirconium oxide and the hydrogen is set free. And hydrogen at the right concentration in an atmosphere is either flammable or explosive." "Hydrogen combustion would not occur necessarily in the containment building," Bergeron pointed out, "which is inert—it doesn't have any oxygen—but they have had to vent the containment, because this pressure is building up from all this steam. And so the hydrogen is being vented with the steam and it's entering some area, some building, where there is oxygen, and that's where the explosion took place." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, Yes of course & many would say that there is no safe way to get rid of nuclear trash. Some say after a period of 50 years it is safe & of course there is *talk* of a reactor that could someday consume the trash. Yet here & now they produce nuclear waste for years & have no safe way to get rid of it. So yes I agree with your bigger question & while some may claim lack of oil the truth for both is as elcent said unlimited human insanity mixed with greed and power-games is the most likely answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Edano says there could be an explosion at the No 3 reactor, but this would not threaten the reactor itself/RT@mpoppel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitrapaap Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes.... Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants! And like all the well organized high tech countries, its engineers are convinced that they can calculate and predict every eventuality, making them believe that they can build anything anywhere, assuring everybody that everything is safe and every possibility has been evaluated, tested and the neccessary precautions taken. Unfortunaelty nature shows us again and again, that no matter how well organized and high tech we are, at the end nature is stronger. In this case the testing for earthquakes was made under assumptions that were lower than reality, and I wonder how it could escape tsunami used engineers, that once the earthquake cuts off power, the flood coming after it, could wash away all the back up stystems. Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes.... Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants! And like all the well organized high tech countries, its engineers are convinced that they can calculate and predict every eventuality, making them believe that they can build anything anywhere, assuring everybody that everything is safe and every possibility has been evaluated, tested and the neccessary precautions taken. Unfortunaelty nature shows us again and again, that no matter how well organized and high tech we are, at the end nature is stronger. In this case the testing for earthquakes was made under assumptions that were lower than reality, and I wonder how it could escape tsunami used engineers, that once the earthquake cuts off power, the flood coming after it, could wash away all the back up stystems. Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants. do you realiseI more or less agree with you? The powers that be are now so concerned with the concept of "carbon footprint" that they have ignored other aspects of environmental pollution Edited March 13, 2011 by Deeral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david555 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 <br />Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes....<br />Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants!<br /><br /><br /><br /> Or thinking about one country who would like to build one like Thailand , and nearly can handlle even not internet infrastructure...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Why does the densest seismic network in the world/such an earthquake prone area have Nuclear Reactors. Of course they need the power it supplies...but still it makes one wonder. The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Right now, everyone is fixated on Japanese reactors and the impacts of the earthquakes. Hello! Nuclear is much bigger than that. Any one or group of factors can imperil living things around a reactor. Earthquake is one of many. In Thailand, the two biggest potential problems for reactors are. >>>>> lax maintenance and/or lack of top-end technical skills - coupled with slowness to react and/or acting too rashly - to an emergency scenario. >>>>> take-over or destruction by outside group. Could be southern insurgents (that's where at least one reactor is planned), or could be a future incarnation of the Reds or some similar hot-headed group. Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, not decommissioning the plant when it should be decommissioned, peril to uranium while it makes its long trip from faraway, rising costs of yellowcake, inability or laxness toward doing proper maintenance, things getting stolen (the Thai army gets stuff stolen every month), the list goes on and on. Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer. I agree with your statement. Arguements where they are saying "we're running out of this and that" don't consider that they running out of creativity. They have made money their Gawd.. Honestly, I even believe the oil is a curse for mankind. We have not tamed nature but damned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts