A little lite reading if you run out of all other available forms of reading material:
Some background thoughts and then I respond specifically to your post below them:
I have observed that information that does not promote nuclear power but instead, casts a negative light on management issues or access to information etc. is frequently deemed ‘irresponsible commentary” by those who are vigorous in defending nuclear power. TEPCO press releases are not attacked as ‘irresponsible commentary’ by these apologists and the possibility that TEPCO is not being forthcoming, despite its history of not being forthcoming, seems to be of no concern. Not that ‘irresponsible commentary’ does not or can not exist, but I think it’s an overused accusation that usually slants in one direction.
MSM reporters are dismissed as talking head alarmists (I don’t have TV in my house so I don’t really know to what extent that is true – but even if I watched TV, I hate the talking heads for other reasons of credibility) so we must rule them out as information sources apparently, if nuclear ‘purists’ are to be believed. Mere ‘mortals’ (those without nuclear engineering employment or degrees/training) are to be ridiculed if not ignored for their incapacity to comprehend…well…anything really. Banana…anyone? Am I the only one who has read numerous web posts sneering that the public should address the issue of radioactive potassium in bananas IMMEDIATELY?
So apparently nuclear engineering types or others well versed in the nuke industry are the ‘go to’ folks. However, there’s a problem. Only pro nuke professionals (experience or academic training etc.) are deemed ‘unbiased’ and ‘realistic’ and ‘qualified’ etc to weigh in on the issues. In fact, pro nuke types generally seem to claim for themselves the moral high ground: the mantle of ‘unbiased’ judge and from the bench, some have demanded to know my credentials for posting links to Japanese newspaper articles. (This gives me pause – anonymous people claiming the moral authority to judge another anonymous poster supplying links from a news paper.) Nuclear engineers or others professionals who study the field and do not reside ‘in the fold’ of the pro nuke types are considered ‘anti nuke’ and therefore unreliable persons with ‘an agenda’.
Note the contrast- pro nuke means ‘no agenda/authoritative/unbiased source of info’ and anti nuke means ‘has agenda/biased/ignore their information’.
I thoroughly enjoy reading some of John Gofman’s publications available on the web. I think I would have liked him – the nuke industry/gov was always telling him to lie about his research (claim that there is a safe threshold for exposure) or to discredit the work of the scientist, Knapp, and he was always telling them where to go. He discovered 4 or 5 radioisotopes and did some key work for Oppenheimer. He won a Nobel Prize. You’d think he had some credibility. But that changed the day his medical research (he was a medical doctor too) revealed that low dose radiation is damaging. To this day, he is, in pro nuke circles disparaged as a crank, nut…etc. But he was a hero until he stepped out of line. Discovered radioisotopes, won a Nobel, advanced medical research as a physician – but he stepped out of line:
“”My particular combination of scientific credentials is very handy in the nuclear controversies, but advanced degrees confer no special expertise in either common sense or morality. That’s why many laymen are better qualified to judge nuclear power that are the so-called experts.” Gofman has achieved the singular distinction of being branded “beyond the pale of reasonable communication” by the nuclear power industry.
— from IRREVY, An Irreverent, Illustrated View of Nuclear Power, 1979, by Dr. John Gofman. “
For this reason, now if/when my credentials are question, judgment is questioned, ‘motives’ question…(like posting on world events is suspicious), I tell myself – hey, even John Gofman was deemed ‘unqualified’ to discuss the issues….
Specific comments re your post: The only thing of interest to me in the video was the leaning pool but I wouldn’t know how to excise the part that caught my interest. The clip was just over 5 minutes and I thought people would skim the vid for anything that may be of interest to them. I post articles that contain elements I find interesting, relevant, or ridiculous and I trust others read the same material and form their own opinions as to the content.
You note that the commentator is ‘anti-nuke’. I get the impression the pro-nuke people do not want these issues discussed among those without sufficient nuke background so it is possible that the anti-nuke people are the only ones who will go on camera talking about this kind of information.
Re: Hydrogen explosion. Some experts have said that the explosion in pool was not entirely a hydrogen explosion – there are frame by frame analysis of the explosion that some use to explain the difference between detonation and deflagration. I didn’t catch which side the commentator was on because I was not watching the vid for that info but it seems he sides with those who say it was partially a hydrogen explosion and partially a nuclear explosion because the fuel that was blown into the surrounding country side could not have been ejected by a purely hydrogen explosion (e.g., how could hydrogen, a lighter than air substance, explode beneath the water covered fuel rods to eject them). There is an interesting (to me) theory that it still could have been a chemical explosion – something exotic happening with plutonium and uranium but I haven’t seen an explanation of that. If anyone sees an explanation of that theory – please send it my way – it’s the first time I’ve heard reference to the chemical interactions these isotopes may be capable of producing.
I do not focus on what kind of explosion it was very much because the unfortunate result – the dissemination of radioactive material across terrain, the ocean, and the atmosphere remains the same regardless of how it occurred.
I watched the vid again to try to see what you meant about ‘high dose’. If it was the chat about workers not being able to remain in the building #1 because they would receive too high of a dose in a short amount of time. I assumed that they were rough estimates of proximity to a source and a reading of the level of radiation received at that proximity times the length of time spent there to estimate a dose rate. Other types of dose may be present (if someone has an ill fitting breathing apparatus etc.) but estimates like these seem common enough – tepco and the Japanese gov seemed to be estimating student exposure to contaminated soil at schools this way. I read it as ‘we don’t want workers in building 1 for x amount of time because we think that period of time/proximity will result in higher levels of exposure then we believe is acceptable’ possibly because there’s a lot of work ahead and they don’t want to burn through worker’s limits yet.
You Said: “IMNSHO its imperative we recognize we’re in “uncharted territory” with the Fukashima event. Multiple reactors have withstood seismic events far in excess of design specs yet maintained integrity. Recovery/cleanup is going to be a major task. But rather than accept the luddites’ contention of this as a “negative”, I suhmit its a “positive”. Had we done the same post TMI, we’d be able to replace these dinosaurs with “Gen4” cache plants even smaller, safer and more efficient. >PS
PiperShade, there is no disagreement, that I can see, that we are in ‘uncharted territory’ with the Fukashima event. We agree that multiple reactors withstood seismic events far in excess of design specs yet maintained integrity – but this information is ‘sunny side’ up in my opinion. The situation is quite serious even though the nuke plant came through the seismic event.
My ‘disappointment’ is with management decisions and lack of
transparency,, accountability etc. and surround the serious suggestions that we not be in the shape we are in today in Fukushima if not for flawed human decisions:
“In the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan it was possible to have avoided the nuclear catastrophe. I say this because of my detail knowledge of the Fukushima nuclear power plants, having been an engineer on the original General Electric design team for Boiling Water Reactors in San Jose, California.” http://www.examiner.com/wilderness-photography-in-eugene/fukushima-the-path-not-taken-1
There is a reason why two top Japanese execs broke down in tears while apologizing for not ‘sharing’ information sooner... One of the first Japanese newspaper articles I read re Fukushima was that a spike in radiation drove back workers and four reactors were in danger of melting down, no power was available, the idea of using helicopters was abandoned, the Japanese didn’t know what to do and were asking the US to intervene. This shortly after hearing that ‘all was well’ in Fukushima, workers had it under control.
TEPCO’s official history, the history of other Japanese companies running other reactors, the way that TEPCO is ‘managing public opinion’ etc. do not inspire confidence.
Monju’s Breeder Reactor incident (component fell into reactor and can’t be retrieved) : “Expert in nuclear power engineering Tateno Jun stated, “It really surprises me that an operation manual has no description about control rods handling and workers operate Monju without having enough training and information about their jobs. Because the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan agreed to restart ‘Monju’ operations, the government responsibility is also called into question. If ‘Monju’ operations are continued, it will cause other dangers. The government and relevant organizations must examine the cause.”
- Akahata, May 13, 2010”
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/modules/news/index.php?id=213
Here’s a description of Monjus issue: Basically – it seems that part A was engineered to be too large to prevent part B from falling into the reactor in an unrecoverable manner: August of 2010:
http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-db/en/trouble/individ/power/y/y20101109/news.html
How about building the largest nuke plant in the world on top of a seismic fault without realizing it until an earthquake hits?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html
Catch the text in that last URL? “Japan-s- nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-saftey-reports??? Lots of articles online re TEPCO’s decision making over the years.
Or the report of the “Botched Container” for Fukushima reactor 4?
Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K., helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel pressure vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the fuel rods in the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima’s Dai-Ichi plant, hit by explosion and fire after the tsunami.
Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his accusations to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored, he says.
The accident occurred when Tanaka and his team were strengthening the steel in the pressure vessel, heating it in a furnace to more than 600 degrees Celsius (1,112 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that melts metal. Braces that should have been inside the vessel during the blasting were either forgotten or fell over. After it cooled, Tanaka found that its walls had warped.
‘Felt Like a Hero’
The law required the flawed vessel be scrapped, a loss that Tanaka said might have bankrupted the company. Rather than sacrifice years of work and risk the company’s survival, Tanaka used computer modeling to devise a way to reshape the vessel so that no one would know it had been damaged. He did that with Hitachi’s blessings, he said.
“I saved the company billions of yen,” Tanaka said in an interview March 12, the day after the earthquake. Tanaka says he got a 3 million yen bonus ($38,000) from Hitachi and a plaque acknowledging his “extraordinary” effort in 1974. “At the time, I felt like a hero.”
That changed with Chernobyl. Two years after the world’s worst nuclear accident, Tanaka went to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to report the cover-up he’d engineered more than a decade earlier. Hitachi denied his accusation and the government refused to investigate.
‘No Safety Problem’
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Ransomnote continues: I have to see the novelty of this situation as a negative and I don’t consider myself a ‘luddite’ regardless of what others may say.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
“Had we done the same post TMI, we’d be able to replace these dinosaurs with “Gen4” cache plants even smaller, safer and more efficient. >PS”
I reject your assertion outright. After you broached the subject of TMI in a prior post – I did some reading. Similar to the reading I did when others talked about Nevada above ground testing, Nagasaki, radiation received during air travel, Chernobyl etc. Lots and lots of reading leads me to form the opinion that the last thing that the pro nuke lobby will ever do is accept accountability for their actions so I am not going to blame citizens clamouring for transparency in return for their tax dollar for the human error, mismanagement, misinformation, and pressure tactics of the nuke industry/gov lobby.
ransomenote,
Seems to me you’re guilty of the same flaws/tactics you accuse the “pro-nukes” of......I eat bananas for the soluable postassimum.....And yes its possible to create radioactive isotopes of potassimum. But we do this with a lot of substances for a varity of reasons - mostly medical.
The key, IMO, is the “half-life of the isotopes being examined.
As I’ve noted from the outset, my limited nuclear experience has been of the “hairy-knuckled” variety; i.e. confined to the practical aspects of servicing critical components in operating plants. As such my operating dictum regarding exposure has always been “less is best” and “hands and feet before body and brain”.... IOW, I’ll trade a “dose” to my hands if it reduces my brain/body dose any day......
If you were involved, (you didn’t mention at what level), in the design/construction of Fukishima, then you know far more about these plants than I do. My only information of them and the operator is hearsay from from fellow reps that worked there. But when an island larger than NJ moves laterally 17’ and tilts some 4 meters I suspect its only natural buildings grounded in its bedrock should likewise “tip” in comparison to an independent verticle baseline .....
No argument Dr. Openheimer was brilliant. He was also a traitor, passing critical information to the Soviets via the Rosenbergs. As for his later contentions regarding radiation, they don’t “stand up” very well to history. Early hominids were exposed to “dose rates” much higher than we experience now. So were our near ancestors. During the industrial age - and even now - coal miners, ( not to mention a lot of other jobs ) subject workers to higher “dose rates” than are acceptable for nuke plant workers. (Just how many “rems, etc does a teenage lifeguard get in the course of a summer’s employment ?)
Its pretty well established the “explosion(s)” were chemical ones coming hard at the heels of venting of the reactor vessels. (When you break down water you get hydrogen (2) and oxygen (1) IOW all that’s needed is a spark.) To get a “nuclear” explosion implies that a critical mass/containment was created in a fuel pool with some level of water and fuel bundles in individusal containment by a chemical explosion.......When the esteemed Dr. Openheimer was doubtful if the “implosive” Trinity test article would work......For the TEPCO operators it was a “damned if you do/don’t situation”, I suspect.
Human decisions” are part and parcle of any construction project. I’ve read the twin towers of the World Trade center were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. But the impact of a much larger aircraft at much higher than ancipated speed with full fuel load overmastered the design criteria. But do we know the cited reactor vessel has “failed “? Engineers design in a safety factor to guard against manufacturing defects. Fukishima was designed in the “slipstick” era. That is when a slide rule and calculator were “tools of the engineering trade”, rather than a computer and its exotic software. It may well be the vessel is doing its job, despite any defects revealed by a remorseful employee that’s already spent the bonus money he received for concealing the problem.
RN you can “accept or reject”, as you like but history is fact. Following TMI construction/planning of evolutionary - technology plants was seriously impacted. All for a human failure incident that harmed no one !! Worse, all design/research into better, more efficient, safer nuclear plants came to a crashing halt as government reacted to the political stridence of a minority. But our nation’s “energy policy” has ever been thus. In the Sixties a “clean burn” MHD technology for coal emerged. It got so far as a successful demo plant in New England. But its “father” was ousted from his post and soon died, and a antoginistic presidency soon condemned it to a “death by study”, because its revolutionary technology would have major political impact.
Regardless of how the unaffected/remotes of the world feel, Japan - and particularly the residents of one prefecture - are going to become a “case study” in how to recover from disaster. We need to pay close attention to the process. We also need to create safer, more efficient nuclear plants less vulnerable to natural events. For Japan its nuclear or nothing. Unless the world is ready to face the ravages of an energy-starved people - that have tasted the good life - again..... >PS