By Mike Smith
There is no question that the events in Japan are ongoing and serious. That said, I believe a lot of people are being misled by much of the news coverage. Take a look at these headlines from the Christian Science Monitor and from Channel News Asia, respectively,
and,
“Three Mile Island” and “Chernobyl” sounds scary, right?
Let me ask a couple of questions? How many were killed by the Three Mile Island incident?
100?
10,000?
100,000?
Answer here
Henry P,
The US tested in Nevada, the UK in Maralinga, Australia, and only France in the Pacific at Muroroa.
So you are quite correct when you say there is no link between these tests and the earthquake ( even though that was not what you were trying to imply).
I wrote what I hope is a simple-to-understand explanation of the differences and why Chernobyl is a bad choice for a comparison.
http://guscost.com/2011/03/14/science-nuclear-meltdowns/
Mr Goodrich – the term ‘hysterical nonsense’ is uncalled for. Perhaps you have not studied the subject at any length.
The British public knew first of the potential land contamination consequences of a major aerial release about three years before Chernobyl – I know that because my research group published the first assessments at the Sizewell Inquiry in 1983 – using the EU’s own computer models. Few took much notice until Chernobyl made it all real – the self sacrifice of emergency services trying to control the release, the evacuation, and the long term contamination. If you suggest this cannot happen in ‘well designed’ reactors, you have obviously never read ‘licensee event reports’ (they are not readily available) – accounts of all the times something really serious has gone wrong at ‘western’ nuclear installations and how close things
came (TMI did come very close to having the secondary containment breached – I suggest you read up on the technical details).
Many European reactors do not have secondary containment – as evidently these Japanese designs do not. Britain is still running gas-cooled reactors without secondary containment.
The explosions in the Japanese plants have arisen because when water is irradiated and not adequately circulated, it generates hydrogen. The explosions will have damaged a great deal of the control structure – and although reports suggest the steel pressure vessel is intact, which is good news, the crucial issue is whether the water can be circulated – because that steel is surrounded by concrete as a radiation shield, and that means little heat escapes – the fuel even after shut-down, generates several megawatts of heat and this will boil the water – once uncovered, the fuel in the centre of the core will melt and reach 2000 C, go through the steel and vapourise the concrete – the most dangerous consequence is not the molten uranium but the volatile caesium and iodine (among about 60 nuclides) which will volatilise at lower temperatures – and the pressure and any further explosions will cause venting and a massive aerial release – caesium-137 is extremely hard to remove from urban areas and cropland and emits a hard gamma radiation that will endanger all emergency personnel. Many emergency plans assume that no major release will happen and thus emergency services will not know the risks they are taking if there has been a breach of containment – until their monitors tell them, which is then too late.
Even a secondary containment, as at TMI, can be breached if the explosions are powerful enough – so very few reactors are ‘safe’ in that respect – all that keeps them so is the quality of engineering, manufacture, maintenance and dedication to procedure that fortunately, the industry has a good record of…..except when it has not, and that information is not so readily available to the public. Many older reactors in Europe would not be licensed today because standards have become tighter.
I spent over twenty years analysing nuclear risks (my colleagues persuaded the regional government of Lower Saxony not to license a high-level waste storage plant – and in the words of their safety minister ‘if we had had such a plant operating during the Second World War, central Europe would not now be habitable.’
The technology is unforgiving: it relies on a functional society. If we took a Carrington type hit tomorrow (solar magnetic pulse), nuclear reactors and waste storage would be of grave concern – just as they are now in Japan. The same would be true of a terrorist or rogue state EMP weapon (talk to the military about how highly they rate that risk).
It seems that many on this blogsite are in denial of the risks of their favoured technology to fill the ‘energy gap’. That is a shame. And rather than derision, a little time doing some research would be time better spent.
Dave Andrews says:
March 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Henry P,
The US tested in Nevada, the UK in Maralinga, Australia, and only France in the Pacific at Muroroa.
Not correct. The US tested fusion weapons extensively in the Pacific, at Eniwetok Atoll and other sites.
Peter Taylor,
I have worked in nuclear power for 25+ years. Your diatribe has many mistakes, I will correct only a couple:
Every licensee event report (for the USA) is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/en.html
TMI’s reactor vessel did not come close to failure let alone its containment.
KLA says: March 14, 2011 at 8:18 am
An article by Zbigniew Jarowski, former chairman of UNSCEAR, the UN body that studied the health effects of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/cherno-zbigniew_fear-06.htm
—————————————–
An excerpt from that article says:
“data collected by UNSCEAR and the Forum show 15% to 30% fewer cancer deaths among the Chernobyl emergency workers and about 5% lower solid cancer incidence among the people in the Bryansk district (the most contaminated in Russia) in comparison with the general population. In most irradiated group of these people (mean dose of 40 mSv) the deficit of cancer incidence was 17%.”
This is saying that the cancer rate around Chernobyl is LESS THAN the cancer rate of the control group. In other words, a little bit of long term radiation seems to be health beneficial, as is seen in high background radiation areas all over the world.
Peter Taylor says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm
“It seems that many on this blogsite are in denial of the risks of their favoured technology to fill the ‘energy gap’. That is a shame. And rather than derision, a little time doing some research would be time better spent.”
The only comment about these reactors that is necessary is that they were built at an unacceptable site. Siting is the whole issue in this particular case. All the comments about other matters are absolutely unnecessary. The media cannot focus on the issue to save their lives. Neither can many others.
The effect is greatest in the very young. Ernest Sternglass found an increase of 57 deaths in neonatal mortality and 63 in upstate New York. His research showed clearly that miscarriages would have been several times higher.
He also found something all too familiar to this group–government coverup and alteration of health statistics to hide the effects.
These would be immediate deaths. There would also be some increase in childhood cancers four years later.
Even this cost would be tolerable in the scheme of this were it not for another of Sternglass’ findings: IQ drops of a few points in the survivors. Not an enormous amount, you understand, but the effect is greatest in the highest IQs. If you were born after 1945, you have a point or a few points less IQ because of subtle thyroid damage in the womb, depending just where you were gestated and when.
What does it mean to a nation to have half as many people scoring at 700 on SAT verbal?
Those wanting detailed data on 3 mile Isle can find it in a free dowbnload of Sternglass’ book Secret Fallout
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/
Lady Life Grows says:
“What does it mean to a nation to have half as many people scoring at 700 on SAT verbal?”
That they were educated in the California school system?☺
@Peter Taylor again:
Actually, I called it “hysterical rubbish”, but I’ll settle for “hysterical nonsense” if you prefer.
Due to my employment at the time, I was privileged to read the entire Met-Ed technical “lessons learned” report on the TMI incident. To say that the melting core will reach 2000 deg C is simply silly.
Peddle this stuff to Jane Fonda and fear-mongering EU bureaucrats. I stand by my characterization, in either version. I do not find it particularly convincing that you have been promulgating hysterical rubbish for thirty years, though it does give me some appreciation for your persistence.
regarding AndyW35 says:
March 14, 2011 at 5:20 am
David said
March 14, 2011 at 4:19 am
“In the last decade nuclear has been 265 times safer then wind energy on a energy produced verses fatal accidents basis.”
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf / Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
http://www.energyliteracy.com/?p=310 (see pie chart, 8% nuclear, .3% wind)
Andy “That’s taken from a source that is against wind turbines so I am not sure how much credence you should give it. If the figure is accurate then fine…”
Andy, I have no reason to doubt it, but am willing to listen if you have something more then a question of their motive.
In the last decade nuclear has been 265 times safer then wind energy on a energy produced verses fatal accidents basis.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf / Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
http://www.energyliteracy.com/?p=310 (see pie chart, 8% nuclear, .3% wind)
David says:
March 14, 2011 at 5:52 am
How many accidents have there been worldwide with wind turbines, since they started being used in earnest..?
One..?
Ten..?
A hundred..??
Answer: 933.
How many fatalities..?
None..?
One..?
Ten..?
Answer: 73.
(There’ll be many more when maintaining offshore farms becomes an ongoing situation, I reckon..)
Makes nuclear power’s record look pretty good, really…
And over the last ten years nuclear has produced at least 30 times, and more likely 50 times as much energy.
RE. Mark Bowlin says:
March 14, 2011 at 6:24 am
David says:
March 14, 2011 at 5:52 am
How many accidents have there been worldwide with wind turbines, since they started being used in earnest..?……Makes nuclear power’s record look pretty good, really…”
Don’t you think you’re comparing apples to oranges here? The TMI and Chernobyl figures refer to a specific type of casualty, i.e., nuclear-related injury/death resulting from two specific events.
I’m sure many more people were injured during the construction of those facilities or in the day to day operations. There’s no real analogy with wind power unless you want to compare, say, those sliced in half by the blades.”
Mark, there were no deaths at TMI. The wick nuke stats include all day to day operations.
Also, do not forget that from 2000 to 2010 nuclear generated at least 30, and probably 50 times the energy.
@Peter Taylor
1. The Chernobyl accident happened when the reactor was running at full capacity unlike in Japan where the nuclear process had been stopped due to earth quake.
2. The Chernobyl design was, and will always be considered to be (due to obvious disadvantages in security) of inferior design.
3. Chernobyl was run by drunken personal managing a power plant which security features wasn’t up to par by a long shot.
4. People went back to farm the land in and around Chernobyl a long time ago.
5. So far there hasn’t been any more people dying from “Chernobyl” ‘an have been from US nuclear weapons testing during 30 years in California.
6. There was civilians who survived both of the atomic bombs in Japan during WWII who lived to a ripe old age of over 75.
7. Observation has it, that Japanese people rebuilt Nagasaki and Hiroshima and assumed to live in the newly built cities pretty much as soon as the cloud cleared, “weaponized radioactive” and what not didn’t hinder ’em at all. They survived two a-bombs and the ensuing “weaponized” radioactive down fall, and rebuilt. Of course that might be a chock to the hordes of crazed climate hysterical hippies who probably would just have run around screaming until they all bloody croaked.
8. The average citizen of Japan is probably more of a practical expert on every thing on every potential looming Japanese disaster ‘an any hysterical theoretical expert from the west. So if they don’t flee en mass to North Korea but stay to rebuild, why should even the hysterical and overly anxious people of the western world worry?
Does it bother you Ryan in your safety concerns tthat the ten thousand dead in Japan are in no way the result of the nuclear plant problems? Troll on back to where ever you were. I am more convinsed than ever of the safety of even those nuclear plants as any rational person would be.
Poster “beng”, somewhere above, spoke of the radiological safety measures taken at Nevada Test Site during above-ground nuclear weapons testing.
As a US Army officer, I and several other officers went out toward GZ after shots and provided escort for several battalions of Marine and Army troops as they maneuvered post-detonation. We had to look (with Geiger counters) for “hot” items flung out from the detonation, such as guy-wire turnbuckles and other attractive souvenirs and mark them so the guys wouldn’t pocket them and ensure future sterility.
We all took the detonations in trenches at about 5000 yd. from GZ and took off on maneuver after the flash, ground wave and neutron flux had abated. This particular series was called “Upshot-Knothole” and was conducted in Spring, 1953. There were 11 shots, yielding from 16 to 61 kilotons. There were as I remember, three air drops and one firing of the 280 mm artillery rifle. The rest were tower shots, one of which was “Grable” whose yield was about a third higher than predicted. It was a stunner, to be sure.
Much dust was generated and contained radioactive particles. When maneuvers were over, the troops were decontaminated, checked for souvenirs, and returned to base. The film badges were collected and read, and the records stored.
There began almost immediately and continuing through the years, claims from the soldiers about cancers and other ailments which they blamed on radiation received during their time at the test sites. Sometime in the nineties, the Department of Defense did a large statistical study of the complaints from the soldiers vs. similar ailments arising in the general population of the US. The first results showed that there were fewer incidents among the soldiers than in the general population. When the “healthy soldier” factor was applied, there was no statistical difference in the two populations. The “healthy soldier” concept holds that the mere fact that soldiers, having received health screenings before becoming soldiers were, in fact, healthier than the general population to begin with.
In spite of all the really big bangs and slogging about the desert, most of the participants received less than one REM of whole-body gamma radiation. I and my compatriots in the radsafe community for “Upshot-Knothole” received about 5 REM and were given clean bills. I’m now 81 and my wife swears that I don’t glow in the dark.
My point is all this blather is to attempt to put some reality back into the unnatural hysteria which has grown up over the years regarding the effects of exposure to any ionizing radiation. True, there are situations where it can be truly dangerous. But to go into a national panic over a couple of helicopters flying through a radioactive “cloud” is the province of the uninformed.
NHK news conference minutes ago reported that recent explosion reactor #2 probably caused damage to containment; internal pressure is down and radiation levels are up. They are evacuating most workers.
It’s sad that climate skepticism or dislike of MSM (or is it something else?) seems to have infected the reasonableness of many who here have been comparing the ongoing crisis to bananas and trivializing the possible tragic consequences for two days now.
Peter Taylor says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm
So you’re just an anti-nuclear campaigner dressed up as a consultant.
You won’t have much trouble frightening ‘Call Me Dave’ and the Lib-Dims. They will have no idea what you’re talking about but you will undoubtedly have explained to them that the correct response is to use your treasured ‘Precautionary Principle’.
I am also convinced that I can’t type.
I have a compromise. In Blue States, all power generation will come from solar, wind, geothermal and other Green sources. In Red States, all power generation will come from fossil fuels, including coal, and nuclear. Red States will promise to sell power to Blue States at a reasonable price forever and ever. However, Blue States must pay for the power grid used to import power from Red States. Also, Red States will sell fossil fuels to private citizens in Blue States for private use only. Blue States will be permitted to limit the amount of fossil fuels purchased by private citizens and to levy taxes on fossil fuels. Blue States will be forbidden from building walls designed to prevent citizens from leaving.
Citizens of Red States will be permitted to make personal investments in solar, geothermal, and similar sources but not those darn ugly, noisy, intimidating windmills. In Blue States, private citizens but not businesses will be permitted to provide their own backup power through use of generators burning fossil fuels; but only for backup.
All power generating stations in Red States will be sited so that prevailing winds do not carry into a Blue State. No Blue State will be permitted to erect a windmill that is visible from a Red State. Blue States will be legally responsible for all earthquakes in Red States caused by geothermal projects. Blue States will be legally responsible for any harm caused by tapping into the millions of degrees of heat just beneath the surface that Al Gore discovered.
In the event that, through democratic processes, a Blue State changes to a Red State, the new Red State may erect a grid and purchase all its energy from surrounding Red States. Citizens will be compensated for windmills at market value. If a Red State changes to a Blue State, the new Blue State may require private citizens to purchase hardware necessary for “Blue” energy production. In the case that a new Blue State and a new Red State are contiguous, the two states may hold a grand plebiscite and citizens may elect to move to the other state.
I suppose the Jeremiahs and Cassandras will always be with us, but for those of us with functioning brains, it all comes down to a calculation of risk, cost and need. Japan, and many other nations, need nuclear power. Japan needs a lot of it. For their government, it is a simple calculation of risk vs cost. They were advised some time ago that their older nuclear plants were not built to withstand earthquakes of this strength, but they apparently decided the cost of doing something about it was too great. Oddly, they have spent large sums recently modifying the foundations of large buildings to improve their resistance to earthquakes. Probably after this incident they will improve the resistance of their nuclear reactors.
What is perhaps the most notable aspect of the incident is that the containment vessel appears not to have been breached, hence no significant radiation leakage. The Japanese authorities have correctly and cautiously evacuated the surrounding areas, but it seems likely that people will return soon.
yes i agree with doug allen , sometimes when the fire alarm is pulled there actually is a FIRE! In this case we have 3 three mile islands on the go at once.
Re: Potential….
– After 9/11, construction of buildings higher than 6 stories (how high is the Pentagon?) should have been banned.
– After the 1st Comet crash, the development of passenger jet aircraft should have been halted.
– After the first coal mine disaster where more than (say) 10 people died, underground coal mining should have been abandoned.
– After the first major earthquake in Japan which caused severe damage & loss of life, the entire population should have sought a homeland in a geological stable location.
The late Michael Chrichton in his last novel “State of Fear” presciently described how mankind is slowly degenerating from the pinacle of our achievements over sevaral millenia into the depths of fear & guilt – driven by obsession with the “potential” risks with every aspect of our existence.
Re:Alex Heyworth says:
March 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“I suppose the Jeremiahs and Cassandras will always be with us, but for those of us with functioning brains…. What is perhaps the most notable aspect of the incident is that the containment vessel appears not to have been breached, hence no significant radiation leakage.”
Got news for ya’, Sunshine. As of tonight, we’ve had a third explosion, radiation levels have spiked and the “water-in-steam-out” calculation for one of the containment vessels no longer computes. That last one would indicate that structural integrity of the pressure vessel/suppression torus combination may have been breached. Should that prove to be the case you can stand by for some really, really bad news. Let us hope and pray that is NOT the case.