Posted on 03/14/2011 11:07:24 PM PDT by TonyfromOz
With so much misinformation being put out by virtually every section of the Worldwide media, relating to this incident at the Nuclear power plant in Japan as being possibly the world's greatest disaster, it's hard to find good accurate and informative information that can be readily understood. Professor Barry Brook has indeed that information, and he has his most recent UPDATE on the situation at this link: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/ At the linked Post, there is some background and links to this and the earlier Post on the same subject.
I have been wondering why they have 4 reactors in the same place.
It would be better to build them farther apart. Also, it sure looks like they built these reactors too close to the ocean. That puts them in the path of a Tsunami caused by an earthquake, and it was the Tsunami wave that knocked out the backup diesel generators and turned this into a major problem. We’ve done the same thing here in the US. Some of out nuclear plants are too close to the ocean and could get hit by a Tsunami wave some day. The company that built these reactors in Japan probably thought the Tsunami threat was too unlikely to fully consider in their design.
That is awful. Why would GE not build safe back up cooling gensets?
As far as I know, they did have backup diesel generators to run the cooling systems, but those generators were disabled by all the water from the Tsunami waves. This was like a worst-case earthquake and Tsunami scenario that they didn’t fully plan for. This is what can happen when government/corporate bureaucracies get rolling with their own momentum and want to get things done too fast and with inadequate investment.
Hopefully we will learn from this and modify our nuclear plants to make them stand up to a Tsunami. Some of our nuclear plants are also too close to the ocean. They need to enclose the backup diesel generators in a building that can’t be knocked down or flooded by a Tsunami wave.
Right but they were not high enough ot strong enough to withstand a predictable event. GE screwed up.
Seems like they lost cooling of the fuel. I know not much about reactors but 4 GE reactors built in the same place and all 4 having the same problem looks like a bad design by GE.
“That is awful. Why would GE not build safe back up cooling gensets?”
1970’s tech
0709: There is a fire at a spent fuel pond of a reactor and radioactivity has been released into the atmosphere, says the IAEA according to AFP news agency.
0725: Philip White, of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo, tells the BBC he honours the courage of some 50 workers remaining in the nuclear plant, saying they are risking their lives by exposing themselves to what are conceivably very high doses of radiation.
I pray they are well-protected, are successful, and come back to the man without injury or sickness.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...ion/index.html
“U.S. Navy aircraft carrier detects radiation
By the CNN Wire Staff
March 15, 2011 1:07 a.m. EDT
U.S. Navy personnel are taking precautionary measures after instruments aboard an aircraft carrier docked in Japan detected low levels of radioactivity from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, the Navy said Tuesday.
The USS George Washington was docked for maintenance in Yokosuka, about 175 miles (280 kilometers) from the plant, when instruments detected the radiation at 7 a.m. Tuesday (6 p.m. ET Monday), the Navy said in a statement.
Personnel will limit outdoor activities and secure external ventilation systems there and at a nearby air facility in Atsugi.
“These measures are strictly precautionary in nature. We do not expect that any United States federal radiation exposure limits will be exceeded even if no precautionary measures are taken,” the Navy said...”
CC
I gotta say, I’m totally confused. Some of these articles imply there is a minuscule risk even in the worst possible case, whereas others imply a nearly inevitable adverse outcome of sizable proportions.
I can’t square the former claims with what the Prime Minister himself has already said and the precautions being taken. The PM has every incentive to underplay the risks involved so as to avoid any widespread panic; he also has access to the best scientific advice, so I can’t believe policy is being driven by the fear-mongering claims of environmental extremists. So it seems like “the truth” is closer to the latter assessment than the former. That’s not a comforting thought.
nuclear power plants in the united states only exist when they take handouts from the taxpayers. banks will not invest in nuclear power plants without government moneyand loan guarantees.no insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant, so the taxpayer does. think about that, if business thought that nuclear power was safe and profitable wouldn’t they invest in it without government guarantees? wouldn’t insurance companies insure nuclear power plants if they were safe? from construction to the storage of it’s waste the nuclear industry is a welfare industry. corporations, just like individuals need to start paying their own way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.