Pick a number, and that reactor is described as being near a meltdown. The news coverage coming out of Japan is even more confused when American media deciphers it. Hopefully hard facts come in soon…
Meltdown occurred according to Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency
URGENT: March 12 00:00 PST: Explosion at Nuclear Facility
VIDEO of explosion at nuke plant.
Reuters Live Earthquake News Feed
Several people appear to be injured at Fukushima nuclear plant – NHK
Walls and roof of a building at site destroyed by blast – NHK via Sky News
UPDATE: 22:50 PST: BREAKING NEWS: Pressure successfully released from Fukushima No. 1 reactor: agency
UPDATE: 21:47 PST: Meltdown underway at Reactor #1? http://twitter.com/#!/dicklp
Fukushima fuel cores are melting at 2000C and dropping onto steel floor. Steel melts at 1500C. Could still be brought under control, but Four other Fukushima nuke reactors are struggling with similar problem. If multiple meltdown begins, it will be uncontrollable.
Nuclear reactor coolant systems are running on batteries, and the coolant has reached the boiling point. Extremely critical situation currently at several earthquake affected nuclear reactors. Officials are concerned that a Three Mile Island 1979 meltdown could happen here. Reuters Link
From the LA Times:
Conditions appear to be worsening at a nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture in northeastern Japan, according to local media.
The Kyodo news agency reported that the cooling system has failed at three reactors of Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant. The coolant water’s temperature had reached boiling temperature, the agency reported, citing the power plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power.
The cooling system failure at the No. 2 power plant came after officials were already troubled by the failure of the emergency cooling system at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, which officials feared could cause a meltdown.
David says:
March 12, 2011 at 8:27 am
”
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
44 fatal accidents in wind energy, verses 5 in nuclear in the last ten years . In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. 44 x 30 equals 1,320 deaths verses five. In the last decade nuclear has been 240 times safer then wind energy on a energy produced verses fatal accidents basis.”
You forgot the biggest killer: forestry. (Wood is used for heating so that’s partially energy economy). No day goes by without deadly accidents in forestry.
More from Katz:
We’re on level 4 of the IAEA nuclear event classification scale, a GE(?) press release says, it goes from 1 to 7, 1 to 3 is an event, 4 to 7 are accidents; Three mile island was 5, Chernobyl was 7… “Damage to the core and radiation exposure to employees” is the classification of level 4…
Burning in Illinois says:
March 12, 2011 at 8:25 am
A new low for CNBC – stealing photos of nuclear explosions.
==============
Great catch, BiI…(send more)
“BWRs are not my favorite design, but they are still good designs, and quite safe.”
Form a quick look a the pdf reference material, it appears that a pressure buildup in the Reactor Pressure Vessel is a weak point. Sufficiently high pressure will overcome the weight of water due to gravity, limiting passive cooling unless you vent pressure. With this venting comes the possibility of venting radioactive material.
Stuck Record says:
“I just saw the Greenpeace Nuclear expert on the news. My wife, who isn’t political at all, turned to me, unprompted, and said, “why would they ask a Greenpeace nuclear expert? They HATE nuclear power.””
What he didn’t mention was the Greenpeace rep’s claim that, based on his personal experience, the Japanese authorities are always “economical with the truth” when dealing with such matters. As if we’d rather trust Greenpeace and their ilk!
My Japanese wife who has been watching live satelite Japanese TV tells me the Japanese media are saying it was the control room above the reactor that exploded and the cover to the main reactor was not damaged. Hydrogen caused the explosion.
They are reporting the reactor had started to meltdown but they have been introducing sea water to cool the process down.
David says:
March 12, 2011 at 8:27 am
The wind farm numbers include accidents during manufacturing, transportation, and construction.
The nuclear number (4) wouldn’t even account for mining accidents digging up uranium ore, refining it into fuel, moving millions of tons of steel and concrete needed to build the plants, and actual on-site construction accidents.
You don’t seriously expect anyone to take what you wrote seriously do you?
Signal or Noise?
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/438/fallout.jpg
The caithness website has gone down.
Here’s the google cache
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T06VSKtk7pwJ:www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm+caithness+windfarms&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
Well look on the bright side . . . all this screaming media hysteria about the core melting has prevented them from hysterical screaming that this is all the result of global warming.
They catch up on that meme as soon as this current media scream job loses steam.
JOJO says: “How does the radiation from a melt down in Japan stand up against radiation in bananas? Can we have a follow up article comparing the two please?”
Banana Equivalent Dose (BED): The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie, is typical). The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems (36 μSv).
Bananas are radioactive enough to regularly cause false alarms on radiation sensors used to detect possible illegal smuggling of nuclear material at US ports.
That being said, it is difficult to make a comparison of Banana Equivalent Dose to what is happening in Japan, because (as far as I have been able to discover) nobody is releasing the actual quantitative numbers and units that would allow that comparison. The expression “a thousand times normal” can be interpreted any number of ways. Is it a thousand times background, a thousand times what is normally measured at the front gate (which could possibly be background), a thousand times what one worker normally receives in an hour? As far as radiation, we also have the difficulty of whether it is alpha, beta, gamma or neutron. And which radiation products are we dealing with, as far as half-life? A short half-life item is very hot, but doesn’t last long. A long half-life item might linger a long time, but isn’t as active. As with most technical discussions, defining terms has to be the first order of business.
Uranium mining appears to be quite the hazardous profession.
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/edkit/21uramine.pdf
http://www.ccnr.org/bcma.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_debate#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining
This alone dwarfs the deaths related to wind energy.
Apparently that was a momentary glitch, the original link from David is now working:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
ShrNfr
Your linked article said that radiation levels in the area rose to around 1000 Microsivert, and that many people were exposed.
My level of understanding on nuclear reactors and radiation, ( which isnt very high, I must admit) is that short-term exposure to such a level is still quite harmless. Is that correct?
If Im wrong, somebody here can gladly correct me.
Thanks
Wow, an 8.9 shake and several nuclear reactors get a stomach ache. The death and distruction from the shake and Tsunamni are going to be enormous. I hope there is more follow-up on what actually happened at the nuc plants.
From the info here, (and critical speculation by some who really appear to know) the nucs are quieting down – we hope – but I think many or most people on this Earth consider the facilities to be magic and therefore something to be feared.
The reports of a 4 to 10 inch change in the Earth’s axis and a possible movement of Japan 8 feet testify to the power of this event. I’m impressed that all the plants didn’t have serious problems with radiation releases. Some good engineering (and rapid response by the operators) there.
Thoughts and prayers for the people caught in this.
Mike
Max Hugoson says:
March 11, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Utter NONSENSE!
I don’t trust the completely moronic media on any matter.
I’m guessing that you missed my post right above that one where I mentioned that the NHK World Service (and in case you don’t know what NHK is, it is a Japanese TV/News service) where they put up the a map of where each plant is. Now right after that I link to the Wiki article, now I know this might be hard for you but if you think real hard on this you might realize that I VERIFIED THAT WHAT WAS IN THE WIKI ARTICLE WAS CORRECT. If the information is correct there is nothing wrong in citing it.
From the obviously distorted news reports, here is what appears to have happened:
1. Reactor scram from earthquake
2. Safety systems performed normally for about an hour
3. Power loss to cooling systems prevented core from depressurizing to allow a recirculating cooling system to bring the reactor down to low temperature and pressure conditions. Not only do you need to supply coolant to the core, there needs to be a place for it to go and have its heat removed. With this capability lost, the reactor is cooled by adding water and venting the steam to the containment. This is a “feed and bleed” method of cooling.
4. At some point, the core was uncovered and the zirconium clad that encases the fuel was oxidized by steam and produced hydrogen gas. This happens at temperatures above 1600 F.
5. The feed and bleed cooling released this hydrogen to the containment and eventually to the concrete and steel building containing the containment.
6. The hydrogen accumulated to a flammable/explosive concentration and a spark (from a motor or valve actuation) ignited the hydrogen. This is the explosion seen on the video. If true then the reactor vessel and the containment vessel are still intact.
7. The unavailability of a recirculating cooling system has depleted the purified cooling water supply. This would explain why sea water is apparently being used as cooling water.
Dave Springer says: “Uranium mining appears to be quite the hazardous profession.”
If it is being done as conventional mining, it is very hazardous. However, modern techniques use in-situ mining, which is the same technique which had been used to mine sulfur for many years (before sulfur became abundant as a by-product of burning coal).
http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/insitu/items002.htm
Water; they were fine for an hour on generator till THE WATER apparently did them in (specifics not known).
Can I just say it? You have engaged in FALSE CORRELATION. Thanks.
Fix the vulnerability regarding the generators and you have a winner …
.
Chris Wright says:
March 12, 2011 at 6:48 am
I’ve visited Japan twice, many years ago. I was always impressed by the kindness and friendliness of the Japanese people. Like many others, I would like to express my sadness for this awful and incomprehensible disaster. I hope they will be able to quickly recover and rebuild. My thoughts are with them.
Chris
I’ve lived there. About 3 years total. Don’t mistake politeness for kindness/friendliness. And hai (yes) doesn’t always signify agreement. While I also wish the general population well, there are also some very unfriendly, and very prejudiced, people in Japan.
With every technology, there are trade-offs between benefits and risks. The real question concerning nuclear power plants is the benefit worth the risk. Personally, I would say, “Yes”. Yes, I would be willing to live in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant. I would not be worried about the risks, but I would be more concerned about aesthetic concerns. Here in Colorado Springs, I suppose the biggest perils a nuclear power plant would face would be weather related (severe thunderstorms, blizzards, hail, and tornadoes). I do not know how a nuclear power plant would hold up in a tornado, but I surmise that the answer would be very well.
While I haven’t read but a minuscule amount of the posts (I eventually will because all are worth it), as I am getting that job done, I must state the obvious for me. First, large nuclear plants are inherently weak, as they are responsible for supplying too large of a percentage of power. When one fails, too many people and businesses are without power. Rebuild with multiple smaller units across the power grid. Second, large plants built on a major earthquake fault is a fool’s plan. Third, if that country is so prepared for a tsunami, why all the towns, roads, railroads, and businesses sitting on the beach? These design flaws go way back. And Japan is not the only country guilty of such flaws. At the individual level, humans make the same mistakes. They build on sand and have become spoiled on the idea that someone else will provide their abundant “necessities” of life.
Dave Springer says:
“The nuclear number (4) wouldn’t even account for mining accidents digging up uranium ore, refining it into fuel, moving millions of tons of steel and concrete needed to build the plants, and actual on-site construction accidents.”
So what are the numbers Dave? Don’t forget to include those mining the copper and other unsustainable materials required to make the windmills. How inconveinent.
No rush, it’ll be a while before another nuke is built in the US.
I’ve gone through the thread, read some links, watched the video, googled it myself, called my brother who is responsible for managing emergencies at a nuke – so let me see if I’ve got this straight:
They shut the reactors down with the earthquake.
The tusnami took out the cooling structures
They managed their way through it with some small releases.
A hydrogen explosion got people talking all Chernobyl-like when it wasn’t. Environmental types reacted with alarmism to extremely precautionary safety actions that were taken.
The cool down continues.
Maybe they should have thought of tsunamis in geologically active ocean front zones, though.
It sounds very well done in the face of enormous natural physical forces at work and proves safety even when an unforeseen tsunami occurs. I doubt very very much that you will be able to detect even a banana’s worth of effect in most of Japan and certainly not gobally.
Admittedly, Jackson Browne will be quite upset, though.
That said, those guys aren’t done with an incredibly hard job and the people are enduring plenty of hardship.