Posted on 04/17/2011 3:10:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
P!
Sounds like that means rampant radiation spewing for 3 months.
This is no longer front page, but it rivals Chernobyl that stayed front page.
Wonder what the difference is?
Cold shutdown? Reactors are quite cold right now.
I think he is referring to a fully normalized situation.
“Sounds like that means rampant radiation spewing for 3 months.”
Exaggerate much?
They’re the ones who announced this meltdown as a 7 on a scale of 7.
They’re the ones who just said in this article they couldn’t begin to cool it down for another 3 months. (And can’t shut it down for 6-9 months.)
Those are just the facts that are before us.
Seems like they began that process several weeks ago. Sure they increased it to a 7 but its no Chernobyl. Chernobyl released 100x more hard & persistent radiation directly into populated areas. They hid the fact this was happening and screwed everything up through sheer incompetence. But you can ignore the facts while you do your chicken little act.
>> Chernobyl released 100x more hard & persistent radiation >> directly into populated areas.
TEPCO claim says that the current estimate of the release is 10% of Chernobyl’s with a potential to be as bad as Chernobyl if it is not contained. So by pure mathematics it already can’t be “100x”.
And based on past history I take anything TEPCO cum grano salis.
Given that it is at a 7, and that it can't be cooled for 3 months, then what's unfactual about saying it continues to spew for 3 months and that it rivals Chernobyl?
This following is from the Japanese themselves:
Japanese officials have admitted that the nuclear crisis in Fukushima could become worse than Chernobyl.The admission came after regulators Tuesday upgraded the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant to a seven on the International Atomic Energy Agency's accident scale - on a par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the worst ever.
And from Forbes.com:
TEPCO: Radiation From Fukushima May Be Worse Than Chernobyl
By OSHA GRAY DAVIDSON
Chernobyl radiation hotspots of Cesium-137 in 1996 (Image via Wikipedia)
An official of Fukushima nuclear power plant operator TEPCO concedes that “the amount of (radioactive) leakage could eventually reach that of Chernobyl or exceed it.”
The statement followed an announcement yesterday by the Japanese government that it was raising the “significance level” of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (FDI) to a 7 on the International Nuclear Events Scale — a classification previously only assigned to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
The difference is that the containment buildings housing the reactors in Japan have never been breached. Chernobyl did not have a containment building. If it had, the radiation should have been contained.
The press keeps confusing the radiation coming from the spent fuel pools as coming from the reactors. The Japanese screwed the pooch when they esentially housed the spent fuel buildings within structural steel pole buildings. American nukes use hydrogen recombiners and igniters to remove or flare the hydrogen before it builds to excessive levels.
Much of that was added after the hydrogen bubble scare at TMI when the core melted.
A minor problem.
The stored fuel rods are outside the containment.
Site total ~1600 TONS of fuel, ~ 80 tons in each containment.
A major problem.
Most of the news on this topic is slanted so far to each side it is difficult to make an assessment.
See Item 27 on DWG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Cool!
Drop the chicken-little and step away from the slaughtering table of hysteria.
Other Japanese scientists estimate the release much less than that “10% of Chernobyl”. Saw one that estimated it at less than 1%. By pure unsalted mathematics it could be 1000x less.
>>Buzzer<< Wrong. The Containment design is NOT the fuel pit design or location. And it is a problem worldwide that should be addressed, for exactly the type of failure seen at the TEPCO plants.
The difference is that there is a great deal of selectivity being applied to the use of the IAEA standards. Everyone focuses on the activity release, which isn't really the operable factor in determining the impact of an event (see below). There are other categories in the INES that rate this much lower. The category for "Effects on People and the Environment", for example. Since there have been no radiation-related fatalities, it does not reach even a Level 4 based on that category.
The reason why total activity release is not the sole determining factor is that cumulative dose is really what determines the effects on people and the environment. At Chornobil, you had collective population doses in the thousands or tens of thousands of person-rem range. At this point, the Fukushima event will probably end up in the tens of person-rem range. Chornobil had higher cumulative exposures because of wider release (a fire-driven source term, which increases airborne releases much more than sporadic events, like hydrogen detonations) and less effective evacuation. A lot of people in the Ukraine did not leave the affected areas when they should have, and so ingested significant quantities of contaminants from the food chain, much more than you have in the present instance.
“Detecting radiation is not the equivalent of harm.” I agree! Isn’t Oyster Creek also a Mark 1 design?
I understand the redundant design used in a nuclear power plant. You left out the separation involved in routing cables for reduntant equipment via different cable trays.
The issue that caught the Japanese was the loss of power when the diesel generators lost their fuel supply. The point that the media missed is that the plants survived the earthquake and the tsunami with the exception of the fuel supply for the diesel generators except for that contained in the day tanks.
American nukes added hydrogen igniters after TMI to prevent explosions. The Japanese have their hands full. I’m confident they’re making progress. I’m sure the nuclear industry here will be examining the Japanese situation for lessons learned.
I’m wondering how many American nukes have a similar shelter for the spent fuel pools. The Mark 6 I’m familar with housed the spent fuel pool within a concrete building.
Obviously, the accident scenarios for the SFP are different. There is no operating core. The fission product inventory is lower. So there is less material available, and less stored energy to drive those materials out into the environment. It all comes down to decay heat management, which as we have seen with Fukushima is exactly the cause of the problems they face.
So I expect here we'll see added emphasis on assuring availability of emergency AC power and systems to supplement the cooling of both reactor cores and the SFP. Fukushima is a classic example of a common-mode failure. One event (earthquake-tsunami) took out multiple redundant systems (offsite power and emergency generators). That is the real lesson to be learned here. I hope cooler heads prevail and we learn the right lesson.
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.