# Entire Country of Japan at Risk



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

_My comments are entirely my own and are not something I have heard from the talking heads._

Currently there are SIX nuclear reactors at risk of releasing radioactive contaminants. Since at least four of these are situated close to one another, a significant contaminant release at one, could jeopardize the other co-located units. The reason is radiation dose levels could prohibit human activity anywhere close to those units.

Just the thought of a damaged nuclear reactor without any operators or repair personnel is an extreme risk. Given the nature of isotopes measured in the environment we know for a fact that the radioactive core has been damaged on at least one unit. This in itself would preclude human activity due to lethal exposure. The standard mantra of "distance, time and shielding" doesn't work here.

So let the clock run on these unattended reactors and it is hard to imagine a scenario where core meltdown does not occur in a matter of time. Any time frame is unacceptable.

An unattended core meltdown could result in the release of radioactive isotopes at lethal concentrations over a very widespread area. The half-life of many of those isotopes is very long. At that point it becomes a matter of meteorological conditions where airborne distribution could easily spread over the entire country of Japan. As a minimum, agricultural production would end. In the extreme, the entire population could continually be exposed to such contaminants, many of which are extremely dangerous and not the garden variety corrosion products normally encountered in the industry.

Any inhaled wind-born particulates would expose a person to continuing radioactive dosage. You can not shower it off. By the way, when a person has epidermal surface contamination, it is routinely removed with the equivalent of a brillo pad and strong chemical oxidizers (e.g. potassium permanganate) solutions. The use of a sponge and bucket of water is a cosmetic band aid.

SOMEONE, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE MY LOGIC IS IN ERROR. The ramifications are disasterous for everyone.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

Kal,
I have been very upset that the press and the governments have down played these unfortunate situations. I went to my sister's on Saturday and expressed my personal opinions, citing the European problems after the Russia's Chernybol. I dated a nuclear power engineer for over 15 years, been to a number of cities in the USA where he lived while working at power plants, met many managers and supervisors in social settings. I was in Baton Rouge when Hurricane Andrew hit (2 power plants in that immediate area - New Orleans and Baton Rouge - whereas Baton Rouge lost power for several days) and this was after Hurricane Andrew hit South Florida with its Homestead Power Plant. I live in NJ, just 20 miles from a site with 3 power plants - Salem I and Salem II and the GE type unit Hope Creek; the oldest US nuclear plant, Oyster Creek is just 40+ miles from my home. 3 Mile Island is near enough to me - I was not aware of its issues at the time of that incident.

I am by NO MEANS an expert on nuclear power. I am only aware by association, cocktail party talk, industry gossip, and older & wiser from being around for a few years. I am not trained in any sciences. I have never worked in a plant. My ex-friend, who I have not talked to for the past 3 years, currently works in the nuclear industry - his job had evolved into "NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT" to the current crop of young engineers - he is one of the few old timers who is left. Redundant piping systems for safety measures, pump testing standards, testing requirements are lost on this current generation of engineers/employees who did not design or build these plants (these are extremely complex worksites). He was travelling 4 days every 2 months (on loan to other nuclear power plants in the US from the utililty he works for) to review meetings - screaming "no you can't do that" over and over again. B(oiling)W(ater)R(eactors) and turbine generators are the two types of plants built as commerical electrical generation plants. GE design was the BWRs - cheaper and faster to build - the Japanese plants in discussion .... (this is my weak science area & I may not be totally correct).

This is not good, in my personal opinion. Air floats, rain goes thru air, water then hits oceans and land. Oceans and land have animals and plants which we eat. Jet streams of air and ocean currents will move this problem to everyone's neighborhood and sources of food. This is not just a little fire in Japan - these fuel rods are exposed and burning; that is what they do to produce electricity for years and years. Pouring water on them does NOT put out the fire; it cools them by evaporation, causing the contaminated water to become steam and escape into the air or ocean or ground. Give them oxygen and they start to "burn" again.

The contaminated air floats off whereas rain water (H2O) takes the contaminated parts to earth and ocean. The water inside of the cooling pools and the reactor core is inside of a closed loop in a "safe" power generating plant. The water is very contaminated and part of the waste by-products that nuclear power plants generate and have stored onsite since before they opened. Savannah River (as mentioned in a Ben Afleck movie, _Day After Tomorrow_, is perhaps the largest nuclear waste site in USA) but is not a storage yard for the waste of commerical power plants - each plant stores onsite its own waste. I wonder WHERE the Japanese commerical power plants have been storing their "spent" nuclear reactor fuel rods and waste water since they have been operating? And another issue is, anything secondarily contaminated objects like pumps, trucks, boats, screw drivers, bodies, clothing, dirt, shovels, shoes, is as contaminated as the primarily/direct touched objects ... for a VERY LONG TIME. It does not wash off like dirt and goes away down the drain.

An incident causes an zone miles in diameter where it is NOT SAFE - called a DEAD ZONE, because anything inside the zone becomes, dead. It is a 20 mile radius in Russia - it is not connected to an ocean as the Japanese site is. 

I can find no error in your post, Kal. I am very concerned also. I think our government is concerned about information (readings and status, etc) they are receiving from the Japanese government. Our military (particularily our Navy) is very knowledgeable about nuclear power - they have moved ships and are seemingly _NOT INTERESTED_ in being on the ground. There is most likely a very good reason.


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> ...I wonder WHERE the Japanese commerical power plants have been storing their "spent" nuclear reactor fuel rods and waste water since they have been operating? ...


 
For a lay-person, you have a very solid understanding of the issues facing the nuclear industry.

Unfortunately, because we in the US do not have a high level radioactive waste depository (e.g for spent fuel rods), the industry must store those rods ON SITE in containment pools. So here we have the very highest level of radioactive waste being stored at numerous locations throughout the US. Not one of those locations can come anywhere near to meeting the enviromental, geological, etc standards required for permanent hi-level radioactive waste disposal. In short, we are storing waste in an unprotected manner. 

And guess what, that's the same type of storage used for the four reactors in Japan...RIGHT NEXT TO THE DAMAGED REACTORS. It's my understanding there are 6-8 spent cores beings stored at that site. Obviously those cores continue to release heat and there is no operational control in keeping those cores cooled. So add that to the ultimate risk-release scenario.

Also, I am now starting to wonder about atmospheric and trans-oceanic transfer of particulate matter from an uncontrolled source. Keep breathing even the most tiny amount of radioactive particulates and they become bio-accumulative and continue to emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation over a person's entire life. Eventually that dosage will have detrimental and adverse health impacts.

As they say: _"So Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"_


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

Kal said:


> .... for the four reactors in Japan...RIGHT NEXT TO THE DAMAGED REACTORS. It's my understanding there are 6-8 spent cores beings stored at that site. Obviously those cores continue to release heat and there is no operational control in keeping those cores cooled. So add that to the ultimate risk-release scenario....



Each spent core are all the fuel rods needed to fuel a separate reactor. So, there are the 6 reactors sitting there damaged with their current fuel rod sets and ANOTHER 6-8 sets of reactor cores sitting along side? 

*In layman's terms, up to 14 sets of melt(ing) down fuel rods at 1 OUT OF CONTROL location*.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 16, 2011)

So your saying i shouldn't be looking for vacation rentals in Japan?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Mar 16, 2011)

This is obviously a tragedy.  There are, however,  lessons to be learned about getting fuel "at any cost". A toddler has to have that shiny object at the bottom of the hill.  The adult says look before you leap!  It is too dangerous.    Humanity has to grow up and face reality.  We are acting like children.  I doubt that we will actually do it because too many are lying about the truth to make money.   They have to have that money.  No matter what the risks for themselves and the rest of us.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> So your saying i shouldn't be looking for vacation rentals in Japan?



Ride,
Japan? You need to expand your scope to be a lot bigger than THAT!


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

removed by poster...


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> This is obviously a tragedy. There are, however, lessons to be learned about getting fuel "at any cost". A toddler has to have that shiny object at the bottom of the hill. The adult says look before you leap! It is too dangerous. Humanity has to grow up and face reality. We are acting like children. I doubt that we will actually do it because too many are lying about the truth to make money. They have to have that money. No matter what the risks for themselves and the rest of us.


 
Let's expand the issue beyond energy and look at global economics.  In a Japan doomsday scenario, what would be the economic reality if we take out the country of Japan from the world stage?  Do you think Wall Street would flinch?  How secure are any investments?  What steps should be taken to protect one self against something which has a real possibility?

Good grief this really hurts my head to think about it!


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> Kal,
> I have never been to Washington state - are you near the Tri-Cities area?


 
Do you mean HANFORD!!! The former WW II bomb factory and one of the highest levels of soil contamination in the US?

Nope, I'm in Bellevue, which is next door to Seattle. One neighbor you may have heard about is Bill Gates.


----------



## PClapham (Mar 16, 2011)

*Try cnn*

CNN has been nonstop on japan since it happened....

Anita


----------



## ouaifer (Mar 16, 2011)

Kal said:


> For a lay-person, you have a very solid understanding of the issues facing the nuclear industry.
> 
> Unfortunately, because we in the US do not have a high level radioactive waste depository (e.g for spent fuel rods), the industry must store those rods ON SITE in containment pools. So here we have the very highest level of radioactive waste being stored at numerous locations throughout the US. Not one of those locations can come anywhere near to meeting the enviromental, geological, etc standards required for permanent hi-level radioactive waste disposal. In short, we are storing waste in an unprotected manner.
> 
> ...



_Well, my mama would tell me not to get involved...however, I'm going to chime in briefly.  First, and foremost...I *am*  a Nuclear Engineer...and have been for more than 40 years.   And, my husband *is* also a Nuclear Engineer...for almost 40 years...that's almost 80 years of experience.

That having been said, some of the information above is *not* quite totally correct.  FACT...we do *not* have a national high level waste repository.  Although in the past Barnwell, SC had been used to store spent fuel.  It no longer accepts this from outside of the SE compact.  Each Nuclear plant now has it's own storage capacity on site.  They are designed to hold the *spent* fuel assemblies in spent fuel pools..until they are full...and then the spent fuel assemblies are stored in Dry Spent Fuel Casks on site.  Although each plant/unit is different...and each utility is specifically licensed...refueling outages happen about every 18 - 24 months with approximately 1/3 of the core (spent) being removed and stored at that time.  The spent fuel pool is adjacent to containment and is built to withstand earthquakes, etc...and is constantly monitored.  Because the fuel is "spent"...means it is essentially worthless as a source.

Your "hypothetical" statement that "we are storing waste in an unprotected manner" is *totally incorrect*!   All of these areas meet and beat environmental, geological, and local and state ordinances!  I could go on and certainly add additional info...but it would turn into a book.  If there are specfic questions, we'd be happy to try to answer them.

It's bad enough that we are being fed inadequate and incorrect information by the news media wrt this, but I implore you *not* to spread any more rumors that are incorrect._


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 16, 2011)

Thanks for that explanation (that even I could understand!)

Care to share your take on what is going on in Japan?


----------



## Tia (Mar 16, 2011)

Yes Wall Street will flinch and no doubt there a those who are making plans, I would not know what they are though would like to...  



Kal said:


> .... Do you think Wall Street would flinch?  How secure are any investments?  What steps should be taken to protect one self against something which has a real possibility?
> 
> ...


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

Kal said:


> Let's expand the issue beyond energy and look at global economics.  In a Japan doomsday scenario, what would be the economic reality if we take out the country of Japan from the world stage?  Do you think Wall Street would flinch?  How secure are any investments?  What steps should be taken to protect one self against something which has a real possibility?
> 
> Good grief this really hurts my head to think about it!



Gold and diamonds might be a better currency over the $ or Euros. Weather charts and ocean currents should be studied. It literally becomes any place safe to breathe the air and drink the water for the next 50 years. 

Southern hemisphere?


----------



## Kagehitokiri2 (Mar 16, 2011)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-press-puts-japanese-lives-risk-robert-zubrin


> The reactors in question were all shut down four days ago. The control rods have been inserted, and the cores have been salted with boron. It is physically impossible for them to sustain a fission reaction of any kind at this point
> 
> Dr. Robert Zubrin...holds a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

ouaifer said:


> _...the fuel is "spent"...means it is essentially worthless as a source._
> 
> _Your "hypothetical" statement that "we are storing waste in an unprotected manner" is *totally incorrect*! All of these areas meet and beat environmental, geological, and local and state ordinances! ...__._


 
The spent fuel modules contain extremely high levels of radio isotopes which if released to the environment are lethal. Yes, the spent fuel modules are contained in temporary STORAGE areas.  Please do not suggest that the criteria for above ground storage is in any possible way equivalent to long-term repository standards.  If those sites were appropriate, then why not use them for final disposal? Use the most simple design criteria involving the time for traces of the material to day light and cause biological exposure.  Every one of these site would fail miserably.  Please look at the criteria for Yucca Mountain.  I recall the pathway criteria to exposure is >10,000 years.  Any local temporary storage site would be hard pressed to meet a 10 year pathway for exposure under even the simplest release scenarios.  Also, are you suggesting that the San Onofre, CA site has no exposure to environmental (sunami), or geological (earthquake) issues?  Pathways including adjacent water (or groundwater) might be an issue.

With regard to Barnwell, SC it was no different than any of the local storage sites for temporary handling of high-level spent fuel modules.  *Barnwell*, *South Carolina*, Richland, Washington, and Clive, Utah are the only low-level waste sites. *Low-level waste *should not be confused with *high*-*level waste* such as spent nuclear fuel or transuranic waste.


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

Kagehitokiri2 said:


> http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-press-puts-japanese-lives-risk-robert-zubrin


 
I don't believe the issue of sustained fission was ever suggested.  

We are talking about the release of fission products from ruptured zircalloy clad fuel rods which are in the reactor or in temporary holding pools adjacent to the reactor.  It's the *fission products* that present the environmental and human health exposure risk thru the various pathways.

We must assume the control rods will always remain fully inserted into all reactor cores.  Don't even think about the scenario where the control rods are somehow removed from the core and sustained fission restarts.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

Savannah River is NOT a public disposal site. It is a military site operated by contracting companies over the years to "play" with nuclear materials - East Coast version of enriching nuclear material to make military grade A-bombs and weapons without official oversite by Congress.

One of my former employers operated that place for decades.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

ouaifer said:


> _Your "hypothetical" statement that "we are storing waste in an unprotected manner" is *totally incorrect*!   All of these areas meet and beat environmental, geological, and local and state ordinances!
> It's bad enough that we are being fed inadequate and incorrect information by the news media wrt this, but I implore you *not* to spread any more rumors that are incorrect._



Really??? Rusting metal drums leaking liquids with the little triangle radioactive symbols, some laying on their sides, some with lids popped off - behind damaged cheap chainlink fencing ... 60 Minutes has shown those tapes years ago. Hanford, WA, I do recall.

As for "inadequate and incorrect info", our professional Navy commanders moved the USS Ronald Reagan which was park 50 miles off shore from the Japan nuclear plant further away and out of wind drift.* WHY?*  Because our military commander doesn't want to glow in the dark as his monitoring equipment is screaming "DANGER! Will Robinson. DANGER!". Our news media hires camera ready actors who read a script written by a media communication major who never took a science course beyond 6th grade.


----------



## Talent312 (Mar 16, 2011)

Japan is doing an evacuation of a 12-mile radius.
The U.S. suggests it should be a 50-mile radius.
_Does any armchair expert care to say who is right?_

Perhaps like the oil spill in the Gulf, it will wake up the nuclear industry to the need to put safety first.


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 16, 2011)

Personally I have no problem with nuclear power plants.  The ones in Japan were built 40 or 50 years ago.  I have to believe the ones being built today are a heck of a lot safer.

The issue with Japan is an inept Government and a massive public debt.  If you think ours is bad at about 100% of GDP, Japan's at 200% of GDP should horrify you.

George


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

Talent312 said:


> Japan is doing an evacuation of a 12-mile radius.
> The U.S. suggests it should be a 50-mile radius.
> _Does any armchair expert care to say who is right?_



Where do you put thousands of people if the radius changes from 12 miles to 50 miles? Roads are nonexistant. Trains? Ferries? 4 days without food, water, heat and shelter now? And where do they stay if you get them 50 miles away?

If I was 50 miles away, I would be trying like the devil to get even further away esp if I have a car or motorcycle. I understand the airports are PACKED with people trying to leave the country. Airports hundreds of miles from the evacution zone - packed with people trying to leave.

There is no way to move thousands of people other than if they walk themselves out. You would be putting others in danger to move them any other way. To cause further harm and distress to a population for limited benefit - it most likely would be a "death" march - 38 _further_ miles to walk over broken roads, exposure to cold & radiation, no food, limited water, no shelter.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 16, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> Personally I have no problem with nuclear power plants.  The ones in Japan were built 40 or 50 years ago.  I have to believe the ones being built today are a heck of a lot safer.
> George



When was the last nuclear power plant built here in the USA? Same  GE technology. Most plants as old and not many less than 35 years old.

There has NOT been a NEW nuclear power plant built since 1979 in the USA - remember 3 Mile Island?


----------



## siesta (Mar 16, 2011)

I believe my state, Illinois, has more nuclear power plants than any other state in the country.  I'm not a nuclear physicist or engineer, but I would prefer us to use sources with less potential for catastrophic events as well as less a dependency on non-renewable resources, such as wind turbines, algae biofuels or something of that nature.  Maybe if people wouldn't waste so much electricty we wouldn't be pressured to such things.  As I type this, I see 4 lights on that don't need to be, a tv left on that someone was watching and got up to go use the computer in the other room that was on for 18 hours and all my appliances plugged in and using power while not being in use. hopefully this event, along with a much needed oil crisis will push us to do the right things for us and our planet.


----------



## easyrider (Mar 16, 2011)

The Hanford Reach on the Columbia River is one of our favorite salmon holes. Its strange that we fish in sight of contaminated buildings and old reactors. Some of the best fishing is in the trenches used for pumping stations to cool the reactors and make electricity. 

The elk and other wildlife seem plentiful and healthy. 

The area around Hanford is farmland.

I believe there is 50 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste buried in 170 or so underground steel storage tanks with at least 50 leakers. This liquid is slowly making its way to the Columbia River and the water table from what I hear. The plan was to mix this waste with molten glass and send it to Nevada. 

So the difference of the Japanese reactor is that spent rods at Hanford are stored underground and there is only one operating reactor at Hanford instead of six.

Supposedly, the Hanford reactor was built to withstand the Priest Rapid Dam breaching. I know many people who have worked at Hanford and are now retired with out any health issues.

With the Nekkei taking a pounding other markets have followed. Toyota stock lost $280 billion on Monday. Its going to be bad news for a while but it will get better.


----------



## MichaelColey (Mar 16, 2011)

ouaifer said:


> _Well, my mama would tell me not to get involved...however, I'm going to chime in briefly. First, and foremost...I *am* a Nuclear Engineer...and have been for more than 40 years. And, my husband *is* also a Nuclear Engineer...for almost 40 years...that's almost 80 years of experience._





DeniseM said:


> Care to share your take on what is going on in Japan?


I'm very interested in hearing your take, too.  All the speculation and concern from armchair scientists is meaningless.


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

I was so depressed last night thinking about the Japan nuclear reactors, the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan, and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck..."


----------



## Kal (Mar 16, 2011)

MichaelColey said:


> ...All the speculation and concern from armchair scientists is meaningless.


 
If that means only comments from Nuclear Engineers matters, then great I qualify!


----------



## MuranoJo (Mar 17, 2011)

Kal said:


> If that means only comments from Nuclear Engineers matters, then great I qualify!



Kal,

Seems you also shed some light on the oil spill in the Gulf not too long ago.  Maybe I'm mixxing you up with someone else--


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 17, 2011)

[Seriously poor taste. - DeniseM Moderator]

(Sorry didn't realize with this one, guess my sense of humor is a bit cryptic - Ridewithme38 TUG Member)


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Mar 17, 2011)

ouaifer said:


> _Well, my mama would tell me not to get involved...however, I'm going to chime in briefly.  First, and foremost...I *am*  a Nuclear Engineer...and have been for more than 40 years.   And, my husband *is* also a Nuclear Engineer...for almost 40 years...that's almost 80 years of experience.
> 
> 
> Your "hypothetical" statement that "we are storing waste in an unprotected manner" is *totally incorrect*!   All of these areas meet and beat environmental, geological, and local and state ordinances!  I could go on and certainly add additional info...but it would turn into a book.  If there are specfic questions, we'd be happy to try to answer them.
> ...



There is no reason to believe that local, state, federal, laws and ordinances on nuclear storage are adequate.  The industry spreads around alot of money to make sure these laws don't impinge on profits.  The media loves to sensationalize every story but the situation in Japan is being downplayed imo.  So is the nuclear threat situation in this country downplayed.  So yes, i agree the media is not telling us the truth.  They are witholding the facts which is far worse than they are reporting.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Mar 17, 2011)

US citizens are being told to evacuate. I doubt this is a case of "Chicken Little".  

Having little knowledge of the workings of nuclear plants, I am speaking from a generalized feeling of skepticism, when I say that we in North America could very well experience the same situation should a similar natural disaster occur here, despite reassurances of experts.


----------



## Pens_Fan (Mar 17, 2011)

Kal said:


> The spent fuel modules contain extremely high levels of radio isotopes which if released to the environment are lethal. Yes, the spent fuel modules are contained in temporary STORAGE areas.  Please do not suggest that the criteria for above ground storage is in any possible way equivalent to long-term repository standards.  If those sites were appropriate, then why not use them for final disposal? Use the most simple design criteria involving the time for traces of the material to day light and cause biological exposure.  Every one of these site would fail miserably.  Please look at the criteria for Yucca Mountain.  I recall the pathway criteria to exposure is >10,000 years.  Any local temporary storage site would be hard pressed to meet a 10 year pathway for exposure under even the simplest release scenarios.  Also, are you suggesting that the San Onofre, CA site has no exposure to environmental (sunami), or geological (earthquake) issues?  Pathways including adjacent water (or groundwater) might be an issue.
> 
> With regard to Barnwell, SC it was no different than any of the local storage sites for temporary handling of high-level spent fuel modules.  *Barnwell*, *South Carolina*, Richland, Washington, and Clive, Utah are the only low-level waste sites. *Low-level waste *should not be confused with *high*-*level waste* such as spent nuclear fuel or transuranic waste.



Kal and Vacationhopeful:

Could you please give your backgrounds on nuclear engineering.

You have both countered the posting by ouaifer (who listed her experience in the industry).

I am just curious as to your personal experience and training.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 17, 2011)

Pens_Fan said:


> Kal and Vacationhopeful:
> 
> Could you please give your backgrounds on nuclear engineering.
> 
> ...



I clearly stated my background in post #2 in this thread. As for many persons in this field, you will NOT get a public resume on a BBS. Civilain employees and managers with direct college degrees only are very rare; most managers have short hair cuts and shorter answers. They don't talk. Real experiences in "situations" are never publicly posted or lectured. It is the culture; it is the security; it is the school of hard knocks; it is the informal network of shared experiences.


----------



## Kal (Mar 17, 2011)

Pens_Fan said:


> Kal and Vacationhopeful:
> 
> Could you please give your backgrounds on nuclear engineering.
> 
> ...


 
In my initial post I indicated my thoughts on a difficult scenario for the Japanese nuclear situation and asked if there were any thoughts on my logic. I suggest that the logic be the focus rather than if a person is "qualified" to think about a situation.

Ankle biting and shifting the issue away from the "newspaper" to the topic of "where the newspaper carrier bought his bicycle" seems to say there is no problem in Japan.

To the point of the request, and as if it makes a difference in having an opinion, yes one of my degrees is in Nuclear Engineering, I am a licensed Professional Engineer and have decades of relevant experience (more than the 40 years claimed by another poster).


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 17, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> There has NOT been a NEW nuclear power plant built since 1979 in the USA - remember 3 Mile Island?



I'm sure the ones being built around the world today are much improved over those built in 1979.  If we want to eliminate carbon from the environment, we need nuclear.  IMO the question is where to build them, not whether they should be built.

George


----------



## Kal (Mar 17, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> I'm sure the ones being built around the world today are much improved over those built in 1979. If we want to eliminate carbon from the environment, we need nuclear. IMO the question is where to build them, not whether they should be built.
> 
> George


 
We absolutely need nuclear power in the mix, but bullet proof siting criteria is mandatory.  And those criteria cannot contain political hyped up numbers such as used at Yucca Mountain.  So now, how should a potential worse-case earthquake number be established?  Should siting in certain states such as California (for extreme earthquake potential), or the Gulf Coast states (for extreme hurricane potential) be totally excluded?

If a maximum earthquake potential of Richter 9.0 is used, there is no structure that can be economically designed and constructed.  I really wonder the same for a Richter 8.0 design?


----------



## ondeadlin (Mar 17, 2011)

I think this is a good time to take a cue from the Japanese public and remain calm instead of inciting panic.

There are obviously reasons to be concerned, but the situation at Japan has yet to produce radioactive fallout anywhere near, say, the level of Chernobyl. And even Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in the history of nuclear power, had a minimal impact on the lives of most people worldwide. 

Producing energy is a dangerous business in which we have to make tough choices. Here's some perspective from a recent Slate article:



> If Japan, the United States, or Europe retreats from nuclear power in the face of the current panic, the most likely alternative energy source is fossil fuel. And by any measure, fossil fuel is more dangerous. The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute calculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.



Here's the full Slate link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2288212/

And here's a good WSJ link offering more perspective:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6198421680697248.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Again, let's see where this goes before getting too panicked over it.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 17, 2011)

MichaelColey said:


> I'm very interested in hearing your take, too.  All the speculation and concern from armchair scientists is meaningless.



Michael,
I have known a lot of people personally in* the nuclear power generation field *in the technical and engineering professions. Many more years in total than my combined timesharing experience and TS industry contacts. Almost ALL of my former contacts are senior engineers and managers who can pick up a phone with one or two calls to get a job paying $250-300K+ tomorrow. I did not read an article or see a TV investigative report or play barmaid to a drunk. I have moved away from that population several years ago. Didn't mean I lost an understanding of the issues. An engineering manager who knows his stuff is worth 5 administrative managers at any plant. Anywheres. BWI or turbine. 

I have talked to employees/contractors who worked at plants in TX, LA, NY, Canada, NJ, OH, IL, MI, RI, AZ, KS, Spain. And that is the quick list.

*This is a extremely serious issue. For Japan. And the rest of the world*. IMHO.


----------



## Kal (Mar 17, 2011)

ondeadlin said:


> ...And even Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in the history of nuclear power, had a minimal impact on the lives of most people worldwide...


 
Please check the numbers from various major Russian health organizations.  I believe the largest number was 500,000 people with significant health impacts.

Also, one major reason to avoid a "head in the sand" approach is the impact on the global financial marketplace.  Many folks could see a direct and substantial impact to their investments.  Early thinking would be appropriate.


----------



## ondeadlin (Mar 17, 2011)

Kal said:


> Please check the numbers from various major Russian health organizations.  I believe the largest number was 500,000 people with significant health impacts.
> 
> Also, one major reason to avoid a "head in the sand" approach is the impact on the global financial marketplace.  Many folks could see a direct and substantial impact to their investments.  Early thinking would be appropriate.



I'd actually be surprised if the numbers weren't greater from Chernobyl.

But let's put that into proper context. The world has a population of 6.7 billion people. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed more than 200,000 people. Killed. There were obviously "significant health effects" for many more.

And Japan is not Chernobyl. Not yet.

All six reactors are not in bad shape. None of the reactors have released Chernobyl-levels of radiation. There are obviously issues. I think the Japanese government is lying its butt off to the media and there is certainly the potential for a Chernobyl-level event. But the containment technology used here is much different and much better than Chernobyl, and every day that goes by without a Chernobyl-level event actually reduces the likelihood of one. 

Being pragmatic and honestly accessing the situation is not putting one's head in the sand IMO.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 17, 2011)

I'm trying to listen to the actual experts who are on TV with an ear towards what is said to inform people, opposed to how it is said in an effort to gain viewers.  So, for example, when the NRC Chair is seen speaking I give what he says more credence than the so-called "radiation expert" whose face might be on the TV every twenty minutes.  Not to minimize the subject, but it's kind of like trying to prepare for a blizzard here in the northeast by relying on what's said by a weatherman with a decent track record instead of the latest blond-of-the-month-in-a-Northface-jacket-out-in-the-storm.

For me this is skeeeeery stuff because I don't know anything about radiation.  Many thanks to the TUGgers who do and are willing to share it, because you're helping more than hurting.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 17, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> I'm sure the ones being built around the world today are much improved over those built in 1979.  If we want to eliminate carbon from the environment, we need nuclear.  IMO the question is where to build them, not whether they should be built.
> 
> George



The USA is still a (maybe) leader in this field. Education in all engineering sciences need to be invested even more today than EVER before. Yes, we put a man on the moon. Yes, we have a modern Navy. But the costs in $$$ is spent years before civilian applications payback the development costs via patents, commerical products, medical applications, investor revenues, and income taxes to our government. Financial resources include government research grants, equity market funding, venture capital, and private, personal dollars.

Our government must take a stand which stresses more the COMMON good verses the individual good or profit. Every worker I have met in the nuclear field who has gotten a dose _knows_ either it was a stupid move (and there are VERY FEW stupid moves, no one trusts an idiot on a work shift) or got it because SOMEONE had to do it (go into that room, turn that value, etc). There is/was no passing the buck to the newbie. Admire those Japanese workers onsite; question the government!


----------



## Kal (Mar 17, 2011)

ondeadlin said:


> ...But the containment technology used here is much different and much better than Chernobyl, and every day that goes by without a Chernobyl-level event actually reduces the likelihood of one...


 
In my mind I keep coming back to the fact that the four reactor cores and one pool of many spent fuel modules remain unattended without any operating personnel.  These kids do not play well under those circumstances.  The entire basis for nuclear energy production is 24/7.  That's the central theme where you can not just turn them off and come back later.


----------



## ondeadlin (Mar 17, 2011)

Kal said:


> In my mind I keep coming back to the fact that the four reactor cores and one pool of many spent fuel modules remain unattended without any operating personnel.  These kids do not play well under those circumstances.  The entire basis for nuclear energy production is 24/7.  That's the central theme where you can not just turn them off and come back later.



I do respect and understand that. It is certainly a serious and potentially scary situation. 

Also really appreciate your perspective, Linda.


----------



## chellej (Mar 17, 2011)

The NRC has done dose projections for the reactors and current conditions and are issuing them through press releases on their site.  

The last projections I have seen (3/16) for all 4 reactors estimate a committed effective dose equivalent at 50 miles of 9.9rem. It is less if the calculation only deals with one reactor.

To put this into prespective:  A radiation worker is allowed to receive 5 rem per year for the life of their career.  This level is established based on minimal risks to the workers to have adverse effects.  There is some risk but is actually much lower than many other professions.

The committed effective dose equivalent takes into count the exposure that a person receives and continues to receives from internally deposited material for 50 years. 

In the emergency planning world, protective actions are recommended when doses exceed 1 rem to the body or 5 rem to the thyroid.  This is why evacuation has been recommended.

 Dose projections closer in are much higher.  There are many variables that go into the computer models and it is by no means an exact science.... it is used for planning.  If this modeling is correct there could be lethal doses out to a 2-3 mile radius.  I have not seen an actual monitoring data that validates the models.

The NRC press releases can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/

Other sources:
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
http://www.iaea.org/press/


----------



## TUGBrian (Mar 17, 2011)

Post on another forum I browse from a member living in japan



> Geiger counter in the flat is registering nothing but standard background radiation.
> 
> Even the clothing I have been wearing outside is the same, this confirms the online city readings and the reginal readings too. On the very edge of Ibaraki (where I live) there is raised levels but these are well within safe limits.
> 
> ...


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 17, 2011)

Kal said:


> ondeadlin said:
> 
> 
> > But the containment technology used here is much different and much better than Chernobyl, and every day that goes by without a Chernobyl-level event actually reduces the likelihood of one.
> ...


Ondeadlin's observation is quite relevant.  The reactors are shut down; the control rods were fully inserted before power was lost at the site.

So the heat that is being generated in the core now is the natural heat that develops during the shut down process.  So this is not a runaway reaction situation, as long as the control rods are still doing their job.  And with each day that goes by the heat being generated inside the reactor diminishes as the fission reactions decay.  The question is whether the containment vessels will hold until the temperature control can be reestablished within the vessels. 

I'm not enough of a nuclear engineer to know what the scenarios might be in which an uncontrolled reaction could develop inside a reactor with fully deployed control rods.


----------



## TUGBrian (Mar 17, 2011)

this was a good read

http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/


----------



## Blues (Mar 17, 2011)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> And with each day that goes by the heat being generated inside the reactor diminishes as the fission reactions decay.  The question is whether the containment vessels will hold until the temperature control can be reestablished within the vessels.



True enough, as far as it goes.  And let me first say that I agree that nuclear power is, in general, safer than coal or oil fueled generation, and that nuclear should have a place in our energy future (probably won't now, though, in the US).

*But*, let's not sweep the problem under the rug.  Take a look at this page from MIT's Nuclear Engineering Dept.  Scroll down about 2/3 of the way, and look at the charts for "Explanation of Decay Heat".  It says that Fukushima's reactors number 2 and 3 will each be generating 5 MW of decay heat a *year* from now (right now, they should be giving off 10 MW each).  For the uninitiated, picture 5000 electric space heaters stuck in the reactor building, each running at full power.

That's a lot of waste heat that will need to be dealt with for a long time to come.  It worries me greatly.

-Bob


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 17, 2011)

The problem isn't that nuclear power isn't safe, we've got that part literally down to a science...the problem is solving the problem of by-products and safely disposing of nuclear waste....Until that happens....well i don't think we should be using an energy source that we don't know how to properly deal with


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 17, 2011)

Blues said:


> True enough, as far as it goes.  And let me first say that I agree that nuclear power is, in general, safer than coal or oil fueled generation, and that nuclear should have a place in our energy future (probably won't now, though, in the US).
> 
> *But*, let's not sweep the problem under the rug.  Take a look at this page from MIT's Nuclear Engineering Dept.  Scroll down about 2/3 of the way, and look at the charts for "Explanation of Decay Heat".  It says that Fukushima's reactors number 2 and 3 will each be generating 5 MW of decay heat a *year* from now (right now, they should be giving off 10 MW each).  For the uninitiated, picture 5000 electric space heaters stuck in the reactor building, each running at full power.
> 
> ...


In heat engineering 10 MW is very manageable amount of power.  For another perspective, that's the size of a very small industrial boiler  I think you're being unreasonably pessimistic if you think is going to create a difficult situation once conditions at the site are stabilized. 

The real issue with the reactors is getting conditions inside the vessels stabilized before a disaster happens inside the containment vessels.  

********

The other big issue is the spent fuel rods,  which are not inside the vessels.


----------



## Kal (Mar 17, 2011)

chellej said:


> ... If this modeling is correct there could be lethal doses out to a 2-3 mile radius. I have not seen an actual monitoring data that validates the models....


 
Monitoring data collected today indicates 9 REM at 300 feet from reactor.

The bigger issue is what to model a few days/weeks out when fission decay products are being slowly released thru convection currents to the environment.  I wonder if releases from the structure containing spent fuel modules?  Those are outside the damaged containments.

The release of fission products from the fuel cells IS the issue.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 17, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The problem isn't that nuclear power isn't safe, we've got that part literally down to a science...the problem is solving the problem of by-products and safely disposing of nuclear waste....Until that happens....well i don't think we should be using an energy source that we don't know how to properly deal with


I don't think it's as much a matter of not knowing how to deal with as it is refusing to deal with.


----------



## Blues (Mar 17, 2011)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> In heat engineering 10 MW is very manageable amount of power.  For another perspective, that's the size of a very small industrial boiler  I think you're being unreasonably pessimistic if you think is going to create a difficult situation once conditions at the site are stabilized.



Good to know.  Thanks Steve.

-Bob


----------



## chellej (Mar 17, 2011)

Kal said:


> Monitoring data collected today indicates 9 REM at 300 feet from reactor.
> 
> The bigger issue is what to model a few days/weeks out when fission decay products are being slowly released thru convection currents to the environment.  I wonder if releases from the structure containing spent fuel modules?  Those are outside the damaged containments.
> 
> The release of fission products from the fuel cells IS the issue.



The NRC projections do not list what variables are being used.  Most modeling programs allow for either a puff release which this is not , or a continuous release.  Met conditions also greatly vary the results as well. Plant conditions and mode of release are also addressed.  It is hard to guess what parameters are being used.

Monitoring data should be a dose rate, such as mR/hr or sv/hr unless it is from a environmental monitor such as a tld which will give the accumulated dose. The hand held Geiger counters are a dose rate meter.

 The United States limits the dose to the public at 2 mR in any hr or 100 mrem/year.  This is considered an unrestricted area. This is for routine operations.  The protective action guides or PAGS are 1 rem whole body for emergency situations.

There clearly is some release but the ultimate severity of the situation is still unknown at this time


----------



## Kal (Mar 17, 2011)

Exposure to something like 9 REM in a short amount of time would be difficult to equate to the 5 REM limit.  A brief high level exposure would be much more harmful to human tissue than 5 REM over a year.

Then you have to deal with the type of ionizing radiation....gamma, beta or alpha.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 17, 2011)

chellej said:


> The NRC projections do not list what variables are being used.  Most modeling programs allow for either a puff release which this is not , or a continuous release.  Met conditions also greatly vary the results as well. Plant conditions and mode of release are also addressed.  It is hard to guess what parameters are being used.



The most rigorous models are actually the puff release models.  Continuous release models are less accurate, and the error increases geometrically with distance.

Puff models account for continuous releases as a series of puffs, follow the dispersion and movement of each puff in each time period, then predict the result by combining the results at each location for each individual puff. 

The big issues with puff models are availability of suitable meteorologic data (that's actually less of an issue with long-range transport modeling) and the computing power required to do puff modeling (and that is a major issue with long-range modeling).  I've got a reasonably powerful quad core processor on my desktop, and I can do short-range puff modeling without too much problem.  But for large-scale transport modeling you need heavyweight computing power.  

****

So just because they say it's a puff model, don't be dismissive.  Puff modeling is actually the best way.  Using a continuous release (aka, LaGrangian) model for this is, at best, crude; like trying to make a toothpick with a blunt axe.


----------



## chellej (Mar 17, 2011)

*Exposure to something like 9 REM in a short amount of time would be difficult to equate to the 5 REM limit.  A brief high level exposure would be much more harmful to human tissue than 5 REM over a year.* Agreed

*Then you have to deal with the type of ionizing radiation....gamma, beta or alpha.*This is addressed- it is the 50 year committed effective dose equivalent


----------



## ouaifer (Mar 21, 2011)

*Some additional information*

_This is neither meant to incite a riot on TUG...nor to "challenge" anyone's potential knowledge/information.

However, anyone who might be interested in layman's terms, might find  the following interesting and informative.

In addition, the IAEA is constantly reporting  updates as they receive them from Japan._


----------



## CarolF (Mar 21, 2011)

ouaifer said:


> However, anyone who might be interested in layman's terms, might find  the following interesting and informative.



This is what I get when I click the link.



> Email currently unavailable
> 
> Please contact Comcast Support by calling 1-800-Comcast or chat live with a Comcast care representative.
> 
> Please reference error code: 400.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 30, 2011)

It has been 14 days since this thread started.

New opinions by one or all?


----------



## Talent312 (Mar 30, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> It has been 14 days since this thread started. New opinions by one or all?



New Opinion:
*Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the candlestick.*
... _If they can jump over the candlestick without getting burned, they'll be lucky, indeed._


----------



## Kal (Mar 30, 2011)

We might ask ourselves if things are getting better?  The fact that plutonium has been detected outside the containment tells it all.  At least a partial meltdown has occurred, and extremely high levels of radiation exposure all but precludes any meaningful emergency repair activities.

The half life of the most stable isotope of plutonium is 80 million years.  It is a radioactive poison that accumulates in bone marrow.  The Japanese government maintains that PU was only detected in soil samples.  I wonder if the soil might dry during the summer and result in windblown particles of PU.  I'm not so sure that the wind will respect geopolitical boundaries such as a 19 or 50 mile exclusion area.

And that's just the wind.  What about oceanic and agricultural contamination?  What about "dust" settling on goods manufactured in Japan?  Electronics? computer components? automobiles?  People?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Mar 31, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The problem isn't that nuclear power isn't safe, we've got that part literally down to a science...the problem is solving the problem of by-products and safely disposing of nuclear waste....Until that happens....well i don't think we should be using an energy source that we don't know how to properly deal with



The science may be there, however, implementation is controlled by greedy corporations and corrupt politicians.   As long as that is the case, and it always will be the case, nuclear power is too dangerous to be part of our energy mix. 

As an aside, I have several close friends that are engineers in "important" industries.  The engineers are often over ruled by "the greedy corporations and corrupt politicians".  It is actually frightening.


----------



## Kal (Mar 31, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> ...The engineers are often over ruled by "the greedy corporations and corrupt politicians". It is actually frightening.


 
It's actually not being "ruled".  A very common approach by the final decision maker on an issue is to consider all the "facts".  The facts include technical/engineering criteria, financial issues, political issues, the concerns of the largest shareholders, regulatory, product pricing and others.  The mere fact that a technical/engineering issue might represent 99% of the path forward, that is often countered my all the other issues, some of which are considered equal to any technical requirements.

I have seen situations where the decision maker said:

"I don't care if something is absolutely technically required, I'm not going to approve because of economics and politics".

That's the world we live in.  Sometimes the decision is wrong, but rarely does the decision maker get tagged.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Mar 31, 2011)

Kal said:


> It's actually not being "ruled".  A very common approach by the final decision maker on an issue is to consider all the "facts".  The facts include technical/engineering criteria, financial issues, political issues, the concerns of the largest shareholders, regulatory, product pricing and others.  The mere fact that a technical/engineering issue might represent 99% of the path forward, that is often countered my all the other issues, some of which are considered equal to any technical requirements.
> 
> I have seen situations where the decision maker said:
> 
> ...



What you are recounting I have heard many times from my engineering friends.  It is frightening in many contexts.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Mar 31, 2011)

Corporations are driven by obtaining profits - the higher profit, the bigger the bonus rewarded to the managers.  By hook or crook, numbers are flim-flam by managers; justification is to return a large profit to the shareholders (like they see ALL that money). Getting caught means losing a lawsuit or two, moving assets around and then filing bankruptcy - but never exposing the "professional" managers to personal liability or criminal charges whereas they lose their loot.

Doing the "right" thing costs money by lowering the bottom line profit. It is cheaper to pay lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, bribes, and move to a different locale as these are before-tax items. _Spending money to save money, is rarely about improving the product._ It also indirectly *benefits the personal egos *of the corporate managers - it becomes a GAME of winning, stratagy, underlinings paying homage to bosses, golf matches, fancy dinners & wine, designer clothes, fast corporate planes, personal aides - you know, corporate managers/VPs/CEOs are living like ROCK STARS! 

How boring is a manager's life, if he goes to work, reviews best technical or efficent projections, eats a Subway sandwich, drives himself home in a $25K Chevy or Ford, to a 2400 square foot house which he has lived in for 10+ years, and eats a dinner of meatloaf with his first (and only) wife. But his goal in life is to not contaminate Planet Earth or to die the richest jerk in the graveyard. His boring goal would be to make the world a better place for all to live, not to live his life as if he was a movie or rock & roll star. 

I have been highly alarmed since the first day or two of this disaster with a very big earthquake near 6 commerical nuclear power reactors. I personally never saw whistle-blowing or investigative reporting as a cultural trait of this particular culture.


----------



## MuranoJo (Apr 3, 2011)

*Video up close*

Video from someone watching the water come in.


----------

