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.
Hot Rod Larry confirmed my earlier post about not buying a meter unless you know what you are doing with it. He recommends Ludlum meters and so would I. However, the detector he recommends will not pick up the tiny quantities of radioactive material that might reach us here in the US. This detector will not detect tritium (hydrogen-3) which is likely the main radionuclide that has been released in the vent process from the damaged plant.
Kadaka – if you think the WeatherShop should sell radiation detectors, I hope they sell someone who knows how to use the detectors along with them. Here’s what I want to detect small to large amounts of radioactive material in the air: low and high volume air samplers with different filters, about $3-5,000; shielding for the detector to reduce background radiation – about $1500; a detector probe capable of picking up alpha, beta and gamma radiations, or separate probes – range $200 – $3,000; a meter or a system capable of discriminating radiation types – $500 – $5,000 depending on what level of sophistication you are looking for; and someone who knows how to interpret the results – $50-$200/hour. Think the WeatherShop will sell many of these systems? I had a Canberra system that did all this and it only cost $32,000. If you have this kind of money to throw around, let’s become friends.
Both Units 1 and 3 now appear stable. Unit 1 had fuel damage Unit 3 did not. Both used sea water injection. I hope some are correct that this was used for cooling a heat exchanger but that is not my read. I think they both used sea water as RCS makeup. That means these two plants will not likely be restarted. Public health impact appears nearly nil. There are some casualties at the plant, not necessarily from radiation exposure. One known dead and two missing. Three to four more injured with unknown injuries.
As is frequently the case, the primary public health issues will likely be related to unnecessary panic.
P. Solar says:
March 13, 2011 at 11:09 am
“dirkH says: “It’s not like they need to be carried. Most of them will simply pack up and drive in their own car.”
Hey, check out the video coverage. Anyone near the coast no longer owns individual transport. Those further inland can’t get fuel,”
1.) Anyone near the coast… now, a circle is a circle, and most of the half circle that covers the land area of the 20km evacuation radius is not “near the coast”
2.) We’ve seen bad pictures of the Tsunami, but the epicenter was north of Fukushima and that’s where the worst pictures came from so how many people in the Fukushima area have lost their means of transportation is not so easy to tell.
3.) Those further inland can’t get fuel? Do you own a car? How often does it happen that you ran it so empty that you can’t make 20 kilometers without refueling? Please… You’re grasping at any straw to make up an argument against nukes… IOW you’re using the victims of the Tsunami for your position. Does anyone besides me find that vomit-inducing?
Lanceman is correct on the H2 devices. However he misnamed them as H2 “detonators”.
The proper term is Hydrogen igniters. They are basically glow plugs which burn H2 BEFORE explosive concentration is achieved, theoretically. The last thing anyone wants is a detonation, of an explosive mixture. A small but important distinction. GK
A very “simple and accurate explanation” of Fukushima
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
The concentrations of H2 we are talking about are on the order of 2-5% which are easily measured. The explosive concentration is a function of pressure and the constituents of the other gases present. The idea of burning off the H2 is to remove so that the resulting pressure spike is not as severe and does not threaten the structural integrity of the building. This is done BEFORE it reaches explosive levels. This is not done to protect people inside the buildings (anybody inside at this time would either be dead or dying). It is to keep the building intact, which, even though it is not designed to contain radioactive materials, does help retain them.
From Amino Acids in Meteorites on March 13, 2011 at 7:12 am:
What’s there to say? It was marked as quoted though apparently not strongly enough. Like with a fenced-in yard with a small “Beware of dog” sign at the gate, if someone enters the yard, gets bit, then complains there wasn’t enough warning, how do you think the blame should be apportioned? Notice was given, and there is a responsibility to notice such a notice.
Interview of US Navy nuclear power instructor (ret). He clears up issues at Fukushimi, including the comparison to Chernobyl.
22 minute video
Thats what I get when I multitask! G.K. is correct.
calm down guys…..
Radiation levels clarified:
I had to get a grip on radiation measuring units…
This (promising!) US radiation-reporting network uses CPM (counts per minute, counting the number of hits of gamma rays):
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/RadiationNetwork.htm
But in the media reporting is vague at best, and they’re mixing units like they don’t know what they’re reporting on either (“1000 times normal”, etc. Who know what the hell that means anyhow? Well… I took some time this afternoon to sort it out. I hope it’s all correct. Here comes the gist of it.
The rem is the unit used for equating radiation absorption with biological damage. Since the rem is a fairly large unit, radiation exposure is usually recorded in thousandths of a rem – or millirem. 1000 millirem = 1 rem. Millirem is usually abbreviated as mrem. A dose of 1 rad translates to an equivalent dose of 1 rem, which is now expressed internationally (SI standards) as 0.01 Sv (Sievert). 1 Sievert = 100 rem
Most Americans receive about 360 mrem per year
(360 millirem = 0.36 rem/yr –> about 0.001 rem/day, or
(since exposure is generally expressed by the HOUR:
that is 0.000041 rem/hr or less than 0.05 mrem/hr = normal)
This includes average flying, etc.
Generally 0.01 mR/hr equals normal “background radiation levels”.
Now here’s the important thing to make sense of ‘Counts Per Minute’ radiation reporting:
0.01 mR/hr translates into anywhere from 6 to 33 CPM (counts per minute, depending on your type of Geiger Counter.
Details on that here: http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/radiation-detection.htm
So, using the US normal here: “a thousand times
normal” (reported miles away from nuke plants in Japan) is about 41 mrem, or 0.041 rem/hr
In 24 hrs that adds up to about 1 rem. Stay in that for
a week and you’re basically in trouble.
For comparison: if you receive a chest x-ray, the amount of exposure – or dose – would be approximately 10 mrem or 0.010 rem. Get 100 X-rays and you got 1 rem too – not recommended. A US coast to coast airline flights involves about 5mrem (
0.005 rem) (From elevated cosmic radiation levels in the upper atmosphere).
1 rem received in a short period or over a long period is basically safe.
Dangerous levels start around 10 rem which might give you a headache and may increase your chances of getting cancer (though really not that much).
100 rem received in a short time can cause observable health effects (radiation sickness) from which your body will likely recover, and 100 rem received in a short time or over many years will increase your chances of getting cancer.
A doze level reported yesterday (March 12) at the Fukushima plant was 88.2 rems/hr, from what I could find. (that’s over 8000 time normal, so the “1000 times normal” further away sounds about right.
1,000 rem in a short or long period of time will cause immediately observable health effects and is likely to cause death.
For comparison: plant workers at Chernobyl in 1986 received 1340 rem (= 13,400 mSv). Dozens died soon after from this kind of high exposure; thousands in the surrounding areas from cancers later.
Hope this was helpful.
PS: A small selection of other sources I used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Exposure_levels
http://www.colorado.edu/EHandS/hpl/RADHandbook/Introduction.html
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/550889.html
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf
http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/fund.html
—————————
Doug Badgero says:
March 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Both Units 1 and 3 now appear stable. Unit 1 had fuel damage Unit 3 did not. Both used sea water injection. I hope some are correct that this was used for cooling a heat exchanger but that is not my read. I think they both used sea water as RCS makeup. That means these two plants will not likely be restarted. Public health impact appears nearly nil. There are some casualties at the plant, not necessarily from radiation exposure. One known dead and two missing. Three to four more injured with unknown injuries.
As is frequently the case, the primary public health issues will likely be related to unnecessary panic.
Can you confirm that with a link? I’ve been trying to find the newest information and have become disgusted with the media.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
I still don’t know what you are talking about. I didn’t experience any consequences akin to dog bite from listening to the interview.
BTW, I did contact the real interviewer and requested the interview be made into a YouTube video. It’s posted in my previous comment.
My understanding is that seawater has been introduced into the RCS (Reactor Coolant System). Obviously there was no alternative source of make up. Although it might have been filtered and some of the salt removed, it will be corrosive especially at these high temperatures. This could complicate efforts at long term cooling but in the short term must have been necessary. Even without this, the reactor is toast. Plus it was a small reactor of an old design which I think was recently issued a life extension which was good in an ironic way since it probably required a review and refit to allow it to continue to operate.
I also find it ironic that the anti-nukes are screaming “coverup” when they never complained about the suppression of information that took place in climategate. And the efforts to avoid global warming would no doubt have a far more adverse effect on people than these nuclear accidents.
Wow! ABC News just had a rather sensible segment on their nightly news.
They actually said what many people don’t realize, if you are in Japan and somehow exposed, just remove your contaminated clothing and take a shower with soap and water, that’s it. It will remove all but a very small fraction. Never thought MSM was capable of such honesty in 2011.
People hear the word radiation or uranium and just freak out… time for them to learn something of the real world they live in. (just hope the knowledge that they are in reality always “exposed” doesn’t send them over the mental cliff)
In a few days Japan needs a good heavy rain to put most of this back into the soil and sea from whence it came. The same nuclear reactions found in a reactor occur in all soil every second of every day, everywhere, producing the same isotope side-products. Uranium is everywhere if you just pick up a shovel and dig a shovelful.
Some quotes from the general web:
“Uranium is virtually everywhere on Earth.”
“Uranium is everywhere (soils, building materials, etc.)”
“Where is uranium found in the world? Answer It can be found almost everywhere in soil and rock, in rivers and oceans. Traces of uranium are even found in food and human tissue.”
I hope the general populace is capable of learning.
I sure don’t want to marginalize this danger. I viewed the explosion and I could see the extreme danger right there and at that moment, breathing that gray dust was the danger. Bringing radioactive isotopes as dust into your lungs is the prime danger and should be guarded against at all costs. But, radiation somehow beaming from kilometers away and being a danger is also *not* real. It was the smoke emanating from Chernobyl’s core’s graphite for days on end that spread it so wide and far and in that case, the danger was very real until rain brought is down.
Get real. (not speaking to most here, but instead to some I am leading here to read and hopefully learn a bit)
pwl: seems you reeled me in, always imagined your voice to be much lower. ☺
Re hotrod ( Larry L ) on March 13, 2011 at 7:24 am
and Leg on March 13, 2011 at 1:15 pm:
Ah, that was just a friendly poke at Anthony. I thought the mention of “radiation shields” would’ve tipped that off. You did check the WeatherShop to see what they were, right?
At the time, I was actually thinking about some recent episodes of Castle (ABC, US) when they were looking for a Cobalt-60 “dirty bomb.” People were freaking out over a police department-issued radiation detector with LED indicators. They didn’t know what or how much it was measuring, just “OMG, the red LED’s are on, we could die!”
Although small in terms of evacuation size–22 residences if you believe Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill–try the terms “Tennessee coal ash spill” in your favorite search engine.
To me, it qualifies as a breakdown at a coal fired electricity plant.
Ian,
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html
It is my judgment (25+ years in nuclear operations) that plant conditions have stabilized based on this website. They do need to continue to provide cooling but decay heat is dropping more and more as time passes thereby reducing the cooling needs.
kwik says:
=============================
March 13, 2011 at 7:52 am
-The evacuation is a precaution, right? They do it by the book.
I’ve never heard of an evacuation over a breakdown at a coal fired electricity plant.
===========================
Check out the Aberfan disaster. Many many children were killed by a landslide of a coal tip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster
Doug Badgero says:
March 13, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Ian,
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html
It is my judgment (25+ years in nuclear operations) that plant conditions have stabilized based on this website. They do need to continue to provide cooling but decay heat is dropping more and more as time passes thereby reducing the cooling needs.
Thanks for the info…
But we do have dozens of protective action evacuations every year from common industrial accidents:
Fires at plastics factories
Fires and leaks from derailed trains
Chemical leaks Chlorine, etheene oxide, sulfuric and Nitric acid, pesticide etc.
Fires at tire and trash disposal sites
Transformer fires
Explosion hazards such as large leaks of gasoline, natural gas, propane etc.
Not to mention flood and storm evacuations.
Normal industrial operations in our modern industrial society are not at all uncommon.
If you go back historically to the time when Steam technology was new boiler blowups were relatively common. After a number of those events society figured out how to use steam safely, by establishing safety codes for high pressure steam plants and inspection systems and safety factors for design. Nuclear power is historically a very safe industry when you compare it to long standing industries like coal mining, oil processing etc. that we accept as a necessary risk to acquire energy. So far more people were killed in the recent Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil platform blow out than were killed by this natural disaster on site at these 7 nuclear power plants.
This is of course not to belittle in any way the 10’s of thousands of civilians killed in Japan by the direct action of the tsunami and earth quake.
This event should certainly be a wake up call regarding tsunami preparedness in major industrialized countries and there near shore industrial installations, and provisions that should be made for wave control barriers around some structures and emergency power and fire fighting resources that should be on hand near by outside the most likely tsunami wave inundation zone.
Larry
MVB:
Pretty good, I’ll just add that a rem is the biological damage (energy deposited) effected by exposing living tissue to 1 rad of gamma. So while one rem is not directly measured it can be equated to one rad (measured) gamma. This is not true with internal uptakes of sources such as tritium, particulate etc. Here, biological halflife and exposure of critical organs determine dose received (rem) and committed. GK
From: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110313-5.pdf
Fukushima for Dummies
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/03/fukushima-for-dummies.html
I noted an interesting item at World Nuclear News that I haven’t seen elsewhere.
“The tsunami wave that hit the plant measured at least 7 metres in height, compared to the maximum 6.5 metre case the plant was designed to cope with.”
A number of people I have spoken to wondered how they could have had these plants on the coast without tsunami protection. It appears they did just not sufficient protection.