Is Japan Gonna Die?

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
You Can STOP WORRYING ABOUT A RADIATION DISASTER IN JAPAN -- Here's Why
UPDATE: We have learned that this was written by Dr. Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT. It was originally posted here.

I repeat, there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.

I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). By “not free of errors” I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism – that is quite normal these days. By “not free of errors” I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.

We will have to cover some fundamentals, before we get into what is going on.

The plants at Fukushima are so called Boiling Water Reactors, or BWR for short. Boiling Water Reactors are similar to a pressure cooker. The nuclear fuel heats water, the water boils and creates steam, the steam then drives turbines that create the electricity, and the steam is then cooled and condensed back to water, and the water send back to be heated by the nuclear fuel. The pressure cooker operates at about 250 °C.

The nuclear fuel is uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is a ceramic with a very high melting point of about 3000 °C. The fuel is manufactured in pellets (think little cylinders the size of Lego bricks). Those pieces are then put into a long tube made of Zircaloy with a melting point of 2200 °C, and sealed tight. The assembly is called a fuel rod. These fuel rods are then put together to form larger packages, and a number of these packages are then put into the reactor. All these packages together are referred to as “the core”.

The Zircaloy casing is the first containment. It separates the radioactive fuel from the rest of the world. The core is then placed in the “pressure vessels”. That is the pressure cooker we talked about before.

The pressure vessels is the second containment. This is one sturdy piece of a pot, designed to safely contain the core for temperatures several hundred °C. That covers the scenarios where cooling can be restored at some point.

The entire “hardware” of the nuclear reactor – the pressure vessel and all pipes, pumps, coolant (water) reserves, are then encased in the third containment. The third containment is a hermetically (air tight) sealed, very thick bubble of the strongest steel. The third containment is designed, built and tested for one single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown. For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the second containment), which is filled with graphite, all inside the third containment. This is the so-called "core catcher". If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.

This third containment is then surrounded by the reactor building. The reactor building is an outer shell that is supposed to keep the weather out, but nothing in. (this is the part that was damaged in the explosion, but more to that later).

Fundamentals of nuclear reactions: The uranium fuel generates heat by nuclear fission. Big uranium atoms are split into smaller atoms. That generates heat plus neutrons (one of the particles that forms an atom). When the neutron hits another uranium atom, that splits, generating more neutrons and so on. That is called the nuclear chain reaction.

Now, just packing a lot of fuel rods next to each other would quickly lead to overheating and after about 45 minutes to a melting of the fuel rods. It is worth mentioning at this point that the nuclear fuel in a reactor can *never* cause a nuclear explosion the type of a nuclear bomb. Building a nuclear bomb is actually quite difficult (ask Iran).

In Chernobyl, the explosion was caused by excessive pressure buildup, hydrogen explosion and rupture of all containments, propelling molten core material into the environment (a “dirty bomb”). Why that did not and will not happen in Japan, further below.

In order to control the nuclear chain reaction, the reactor operators use so-called “moderator rods”. The moderator rods absorb the neutrons and kill the chain reaction instantaneously. A nuclear reactor is built in such a way, that when operating normally, you take out all the moderator rods. The coolant water then takes away the heat (and converts it into steam and electricity) at the same rate as the core produces it. And you have a lot of leeway around the standard operating point of 250°C. The challenge is that after inserting the rods and stopping the chain reaction, the core still keeps producing heat. The uranium “stopped” the chain reaction. But a number of intermediate radioactive elements are created by the uranium during its fission process, most notably Cesium and Iodine isotopes, i.e. radioactive versions of these elements that will eventually split up into smaller atoms and not be radioactive anymore. Those elements keep decaying and producing heat. Because they are not regenerated any longer from the uranium (the uranium stopped decaying after the moderator rods were put in), they get less and less, and so the core cools down over a matter of days, until those intermediate radioactive elements are used up. This residual heat is causing the headaches right now.

So the first “type” of radioactive material is the uranium in the fuel rods, plus the intermediate radioactive elements that the uranium splits into, also inside the fuel rod (Cesium and Iodine). There is a second type of radioactive material created, outside the fuel rods.

The big main difference up front: Those radioactive materials have a very short half-life, that means that they decay very fast and split into non-radioactive materials. By fast I mean seconds. So if these radioactive materials are released into the environment, yes, radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all. Why? By the time you spelled “R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E”, they will be harmless, because they will have split up into non radioactive elements. Those radioactive elements are N-16, the radioactive isotope (or version) of nitrogen (air). The others are noble gases such as Xenon. But where do they come from? When the uranium splits, it generates a neutron (see above). Most of these neutrons will hit other uranium atoms and keep the nuclear chain reaction going. But some will leave the fuel rod and hit the water molecules, or the air that is in the water. Then, a non-radioactive element can “capture” the neutron. It becomes radioactive. As described above, it will quickly (seconds) get rid again of the neutron to return to its former beautiful self.

This second “type” of radiation is very important when we talk about the radioactivity being released into the environment later on.

What happened at Fukushima I will try to summarize the main facts.

The earthquake that hit Japan was 7 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; the difference between the 8.2 that the plants were built for and the 8.9 that happened is 7 times, not 0.7). So the first hooray for Japanese engineering, everything held up.

When the earthquake hit with 8.9, the nuclear reactors all went into automatic shutdown. Within seconds after the earthquake started, the moderator rods had been inserted into the core and nuclear chain reaction of the uranium stopped. Now, the cooling system has to carry away the residual heat. The residual heat load is about 3% of the heat load under normal operating conditions. The earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear reactor. That is one of the most serious accidents for a nuclear power plant, and accordingly, a “plant black out” receives a lot of attention when designing backup systems. The power is needed to keep the coolant pumps working. Since the power plant had been shut down, it cannot produce any electricity by itself any more.

Things were going well for an hour. One set of multiple sets of emergency Diesel power generators kicked in and provided the electricity that was needed. Then the Tsunami came, much bigger than people had expected when building the power plant (see above, factor 7). The tsunami took out all multiple sets of backup Diesel generators.

When designing a nuclear power plant, engineers follow a philosophy called “Defense of Depth”. That means that you first build everything to withstand the worst catastrophe you can imagine, and then design the plant in such a way that it can still handle one system failure (that you thought could never happen) after the other. A tsunami taking out all backup power in one swift strike is such a scenario.

The last line of defense is putting everything into the third containment (see above), that will keep everything, whatever the mess, moderator rods in our out, core molten or not, inside the reactor. When the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backups to the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did. Within the 8 hours, another power source had to be found and connected to the power plant. The power grid was down due to the earthquake.

The diesel generators were destroyed by the tsunami. So mobile diesel generators were trucked in. This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit). So after the batteries ran out, the residual heat could not be carried away any more.

At this point the plant operators begin to follow emergency procedures that are in place for a “loss of cooling event”. It is again a step along the “Depth of Defense” lines. The power to the cooling systems should never have failed completely, but it did, so they “retreat” to the next line of defense. All of this, however shocking it seems to us, is part of the day-to-day training you go through as an operator, right through to managing a core meltdown. It was at this stage that people started to talk about core meltdown. Because at the end of the day, if cooling cannot be restored, the core will eventually melt (after hours or days), and the last line of defense, the core catcher and third containment, would come into play.

But the goal at this stage was to manage the core while it was heating up, and ensure that the first containment (the Zircaloy tubes that contains the nuclear fuel), as well as the second containment (our pressure cooker) remain intact and operational for as long as possible, to give the engineers time to fix the cooling systems. Because cooling the core is such a big deal, the reactor has a number of cooling systems, each in multiple versions (the reactor water cleanup system, the decay heat removal, the reactor core isolating cooling, the standby liquid cooling system, and the emergency core cooling system). Which one failed when or did not fail is not clear at this point in time.

So imagine our pressure cooker on the stove, heat on low, but on. The operators use whatever cooling system capacity they have to get rid of as much heat as possible, but the pressure starts building up. The priority now is to maintain integrity of the first containment (keep temperature of the fuel rods below 2200°C), as well as the second containment, the pressure cooker. In order to maintain integrity of the pressure cooker (the second containment), the pressure has to be released from time to time. Because the ability to do that in an emergency is so important, the reactor has 11 pressure release valves. The operators now started venting steam from time to time to control the pressure. The temperature at this stage was about 550°C. This is when the reports about “radiation leakage” starting coming in.

I believe I explained above why venting the steam is theoretically the same as releasing radiation into the environment, but why it was and is not dangerous. The radioactive nitrogen as well as the noble gases do not pose a threat to human health. At some stage during this venting, the explosion occurred. The explosion took place outside of the third containment (our “last line of defense”), and the reactor building. Remember that the reactor building has no function in keeping the radioactivity contained.

It is not entirely clear yet what has happened, but this is the likely scenario: The operators decided to vent the steam from the pressure vessel not directly into the environment, but into the space between the third containment and the reactor building (to give the radioactivity in the steam more time to subside). The problem is that at the high temperatures that the core had reached at this stage, water molecules can “disassociate” into oxygen and hydrogen – an explosive mixture. And it did explode, outside the third containment, damaging the reactor building around. It was that sort of explosion, but inside the pressure vessel (because it was badly designed and not managed properly by the operators) that lead to the explosion of Chernobyl. This was never a risk at Fukushima.

The problem of hydrogen-oxygen formation is one of the biggies when you design a power plant (if you are not Soviet, that is), so the reactor is build and operated in a way it cannot happen inside the containment. It happened outside, which was not intended but a possible scenario and OK, because it did not pose a risk for the containment. So the pressure was under control, as steam was vented.

Now, if you keep boiling your pot, the problem is that the water level will keep falling and falling. The core is covered by several meters of water in order to allow for some time to pass (hours, days) before it gets exposed. Once the rods start to be exposed at the top, the exposed parts will reach the critical temperature of 2200 °C after about 45 minutes. This is when the first containment, the Zircaloy tube, would fail. And this started to happen. The cooling could not be restored before there was some (very limited, but still) damage to the casing of some of the fuel. The nuclear material itself was still intact, but the surrounding Zircaloy shell had started melting.

What happened now is that some of the byproducts of the uranium decay - radioactive Cesium and Iodine - started to mix with the steam. The big problem, uranium, was still under control, because the uranium oxide rods were good until 3000 °C. It is confirmed that a very small amount of Cesium and Iodine was measured in the steam that was released into the atmosphere. It seems this was the “go signal” for a major plan B. The small amounts of Cesium that were measured told the operators that the first containment on one of the rods somewhere was about to give.

The Plan A had been to restore one of the regular cooling systems to the core. Why that failed is unclear. One plausible explanation is that the tsunami also took away / polluted all the clean water needed for the regular cooling systems. The water used in the cooling system is very clean, demineralized (like distilled) water. The reason to use pure water is the above mentioned activation by the neutrons from the Uranium: Pure water does not get activated much, so stays practically radioactive-free. Dirt or salt in the water will absorb the neutrons quicker, becoming more radioactive. This has no effect whatsoever on the core - it does not care what it is cooled by. But it makes life more difficult for the operators and mechanics when they have to deal with activated (i.e. slightly radioactive) water.

But Plan A had failed - cooling systems down or additional clean water unavailable - so Plan B came into effect. This is what it looks like happened: In order to prevent a core meltdown, the operators started to use sea water to cool the core. I am not quite sure if they flooded our pressure cooker with it (the second containment), or if they flooded the third containment, immersing the pressure cooker. But that is not relevant for us. The point is that the nuclear fuel has now been cooled down. Because the chain reaction has been stopped a long time ago, there is only very little residual heat being produced now.

The large amount of cooling water that has been used is sufficient to take up that heat. Because it is a lot of water, the core does not produce sufficient heat any more to produce any significant pressure. Also, boric acid has been added to the seawater. Boric acid is "liquid control rod". Whatever decay is still going on, the Boron will capture the neutrons and further speed up the cooling down of the core.

The plant came close to a core meltdown. Here is the worst-case scenario that was avoided: If the seawater could not have been used for treatment, the operators would have continued to vent the water steam to avoid pressure buildup. The third containment would then have been completely sealed to allow the core meltdown to happen without releasing radioactive material. After the meltdown, there would have been a waiting period for the intermediate radioactive materials to decay inside the reactor, and all radioactive particles to settle on a surface inside the containment. The cooling system would have been restored eventually, and the molten core cooled to a manageable temperature. The containment would have been cleaned up on the inside. Then a messy job of removing the molten core from the containment would have begun, packing the (now solid again) fuel bit by bit into transportation containers to be shipped to processing plants. Depending on the damage, the block of the plant would then either be repaired or dismantled
 
Dr. Josef Oehman appears to study value (or supply) chains and logistics.

I'm not saying we should be panicking about the situation; I'm not. But his specialty gives him roughly zero credibility for nuclear science.

Unless MIT has another Dr. Josef Oehman. Which, of course, is a possibility. I just can't find him.
 
Last edited:
I've read that article before. I thought it did a good job of explaining the basics in simple words, but it struck me as rather less than sincere in pretending the release of radioactive material couldn't possibly happen, no, no, no. With luck, they will manage to keep the fuel from complete meltdown, but he can't claim that in the case of such it couldn't escape the containment, or in the worst case, cause an explosion.
 
I worry about the future of Japan. They have taken a mighty blow and I wonder how they are going to come back from it.
 
Dr. Josef Oehman appears to study value (or supply) chains and logistics.

I'm not saying we should be panicking about the situation; I'm not. But his specialty gives him roughly zero credibility for nuclear science.

Unless MIT has another Dr. Josef Oehman. Which, of course, is a possibility. I just can't find him.

Here is the guy's Ph.D. thesis...

http://web.mit.edu/oehmen/www/Oehmen 2009 - Managing Supply Chain Risks.pdf

He's a business type, not a science type.

At MIT, he is a LAI Research Scientist.

LAI...

The Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI) at MIT, together with its international Educational Network (EdNet), offers organizational members from industry, government, and academia the newest thinking, products, and tools related to lean enterprise transformation. LAI is a unique research consortium that provides a forum for sharing research findings, lessons learned, and best practices.

LAI offers:

* unique opportunities to engage with customers, suppliers, and partners to solve problems and share organizational transformation experiences
* a portfolio of thought-provoking knowledge exchange events and meetings
* innovative enterprise transformation products, tools, and methodologies


http://lean.mit.edu/about/about-lai

Yup, yup, yup...just the kind of guy with the right expertise to tell us all about not worrying just because a nuclear reactor has gone apeshit.
 
I worry about the future of Japan. They have taken a mighty blow and I wonder how they are going to come back from it.

The Japanese will borrow an insane amount of money to rebuild their infrastructure. This borrowing will place a huge burden on global financial markets, making the money supply tight and raising the cost of borrowing to others worldwide. Thus, expensive projects like drilling for new sources of oil will be delayed or sharply reduced for the next decade to come. This will, of course, help raise the price of oil, which in turn will raise the price on absolutely everything. The Japanese disaster is not an isolated catastrophe. We are all in this together.
 
As the scale of Japan’s nuclear crisis begins to come to light, experts in Japan and the United States say the country is now facing a cascade of accumulating problems that suggest that radioactive releases of steam from the crippled plants could go on for weeks or even months.

When the fuel was intact, the steam they were releasing had only modest amounts of radioactive material, in a nontroublesome form. With damaged fuel, that steam is getting dirtier.

But even before the latest blast, Pentagon officials reported on Sunday that helicopters flying 60 miles from the plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates — still being analyzed, but presumed to include Cesium-137 and Iodine-121 — suggesting widening environmental contamination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html
 
R.Richard: "...Things were going well for an hour. One set of multiple sets of emergency Diesel power generators kicked in and provided the electricity that was needed. Then the Tsunami came, much bigger than people had expected when building the power plant (see above, factor 7). The tsunami took out all multiple sets of backup Diesel generators..."

~~~

Excellent presentation...most of which can be verified with information made public, except for the portion quoted and bolded above.

I have been watching this entire event non-stop and the images of the facility show no damage from the tsunami. Logically, the back-up diesel generators would have been on-site as the transmission of electrical power from the source generator to the consuming pumps would be the shortest distance possible.

I am not saying you are wrong, only that my observation of the presented video's do not concur with your conclusion?

Amicus Veritas:rose:
 
Dr. Josef Oehman appears to study value (or supply) chains and logistics.

I'm not saying we should be panicking about the situation; I'm not. But his specialty gives him roughly zero credibility for nuclear science.

.

He is fundamentally a mechanical engineer specialising in engineering risk managemant. That is a better qualification for cooling a reactor down than being a nuclear physicist.:)
 
He's a mechanical engineer? Hmmm... I didn't see much of that. All I saw was systems engineering. He must have some background in mechanical engineering to be a systems engineer, but it isn't what he does on a daily basis. I may have overstated things with "zero credibility," but why should I listen to someone who spends his days researching logistics and supply chains over someone who actually works in the field?

In my mind there is a huge difference between knowing the generic mechanics of a nuclear plant and being able to comment with authority on the situation at hand. Mechanical engineers know the, er, mechanics of how a nuclear plant works, and he has that down. But his first sentence is about radiation! Your generic mechanical engineer can't comment with authority on radiation.

Besides, why would someone who spends his days writing articles like "An Introduction to Supply Chain Risk Management" and "Stakeholder Value, Organizational Capabilities and Uncertainty in Aerospace and Defense Projects," feel qualified to comment on a nuclear disaster? (CV here) Better yet, why should I listen?

He might be correct, but he isn't correct because of his day job.
 
It wasn't a bad article if it was supposed to give a quick idea of what's involved. Apparently it was written for a family friend who, with permission, posted it on his blog, from where it got reposted all over. If we were supposed to take the conclusions for granted, that's of course a different matter. He downplayed the effects of a partial meltdown and flat out lied about how bad a worse case scenario could be.

Meanwhile, there's been a hydrogen explosion in reactor number 3 building. Apparently once again there's no reactor vessel damage, but this reactor gives cause to additional concerns because it contains plutonium (not just uranium.) Reactor number 2 lost its cooling as well. The drama continues.
 
He's a mechanical engineer? Hmmm... I didn't see much of that. All I saw was systems engineering. He must have some background in mechanical engineering to be a systems engineer, but it isn't what he does on a daily basis. I may have overstated things with "zero credibility," but why should I listen to someone who spends his days researching logistics and supply chains over someone who actually works in the field?

In my mind there is a huge difference between knowing the generic mechanics of a nuclear plant and being able to comment with authority on the situation at hand. Mechanical engineers know the, er, mechanics of how a nuclear plant works, and he has that down. But his first sentence is about radiation! Your generic mechanical engineer can't comment with authority on radiation.

Besides, why would someone who spends his days writing articles like "An Introduction to Supply Chain Risk Management" and "Stakeholder Value, Organizational Capabilities and Uncertainty in Aerospace and Defense Projects," feel qualified to comment on a nuclear disaster? (CV here) Better yet, why should I listen?

He might be correct, but he isn't correct because of his day job.

You say "your generic mechanical engineer cannot comment with authority about radiation" Quite right...unfortunately totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The issue is heat, and how to stop, remove or dissipate it. It is a mechanical problem involving the withdrawl of the fuel rods and the introduction of coolant water. The media will dig up academic physicists by the truckload who will when prompted give them the horror story for the 6'o'clock news. But to fix the problem, a mechanical engineer who understands how to use control systems to neutralise the source of heat is the go to guy.

The fact that this particular mechanical engineer (noted as qualifying in Munchen in the article you quoted) is also qualified in engineering risk management adds to his credibility. Where he lacks, is in hands on experience in power station management.

One major and justifiable criticism of the Japanese is that they are so poor at communicating problems. Unfortunately their culture is so concerned with losing face both as individuals and as a government that their default position is always to cover up the facts if anything goes wrong.
 
It wasn't a bad article if it was supposed to give a quick idea of what's involved. Apparently it was written for a family friend who, with permission, posted it on his blog, from where it got reposted all over.

Really? If that's the case, then I take back the majority of my snark. I can just see this poor guy trying to talk down some crazy iodine-hoarding acquaintance who is convinced this is Chernobyl parts II, III, and IV combined, and then not really seeing the harm in allowing the person to post his email next to baby pictures. My guess is that if he'd been invited on, say, cnn, he wouldn't have made the same pronouncements. But I could be wrong here, too, of course. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

You say "your generic mechanical engineer cannot comment with authority about radiation" Quite right...unfortunately totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Eh? It seems to me that the issue at hand has two parts. First, the mechanics of the what happened and how engineers are trying to fix it; explaining to lay people how nuclear plants work is involved in the first part. Second, the dangers of the released radiation.

He might be qualified to talk about the first; I don't know him and we have little more than conjecture about his training to go on, so who knows.

But he isn't qualified to comment on the second. He did, in his first sentence. Many people, myself included, find point number one fascinating, and obviously, the two are related. But my guess is that most people are more interested point number two, and have turned to this article for reassurance about radiation. For these people, the issue at hand is radiation, and he is not qualified to talk about that.
 
R.Richard
I am not saying you are wrong, only that my observation of the presented video's do not concur with your conclusion?

Amicus non Veritas:rose:


That's because he didn't make up his data.

Just sayin'....
 
Last edited:
Eh? It seems to me that the issue at hand has two parts. First, the mechanics of the what happened and how engineers are trying to fix it; explaining to lay people how nuclear plants work is involved in the first part. Second, the dangers of the released radiation.

He might be qualified to talk about the first; I don't know him and we have little more than conjecture about his training to go on, so who knows.

But he isn't qualified to comment on the second. He did, in his first sentence. Many people, myself included, find point number one fascinating, and obviously, the two are related. But my guess is that most people are more interested point number two, and have turned to this article for reassurance about radiation. For these people, the issue at hand is radiation, and he is not qualified to talk about that.

Sorry to seem pedantic but this man is qualified to talk on this issue. The issue is not the nature of radiation and the fission process but the measurement and control of leakage and the reduction of heat . This requires the skills of an engineer, not a nuclear physicist.

The article quoted and in particular that first sentence does not deal with the fundamental physics of radiation but the control of the process and its potential outcomes. The engineer who wrote it stays (properly) within the confines of his own skillset.

Why am I being a pain on this question? My own background is that I was employed in the 1980's, 90's as a physicist working on the final operations and decommissioning of a Nuclear Power Station (at Berkeley UK). I would have been the last person to manage a potential meltdown and would have handed over to the engineers quick smart. In addition, if I was asked my opinion as a nuclear physicist of the risk, my inclination would be to defer firstly to the measurement and control engineers, and secondly someone with knowledge of nuclear medicine.

Where you have an entirely valid point is that the Japanese authorities disclosure of the precise problems is woeful, and of course leads to speculation which is understandably wild on occasion.
 
Sorry to seem pedantic but this man is qualified to talk on this issue. The issue is not the nature of radiation and the fission process but the measurement and control of leakage and the reduction of heat . This requires the skills of an engineer, not a nuclear physicist.

From reading his CV, I didn't get any sense that the guy has a background in engineering. Today, I see that his MIT website has been updated. He does have a background in mechanical engineering but not in nuclear engineering.

I hope he's right about a core meltdown in this type of reactor not releasing mega radiation because I've just read that after the latest explosion, one of the reactor cores now has fuel rods completely exposed. That means the partially melted rods just might do a complete meltdown.

From what I'm reading, the poor bastards at the plant can't buy a break. They are trying to inject sea water but emergency pumps were failing for lack of fuel. They did re-inject sea water but are having problems with circulation and the water level fell. Of the five fire pumps at the facility, only one is working. The latest explosion injured eleven workers.

Not good...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...sparks-a-quiet-panic-in-japan/article1941418/
 
Really? If that's the case, then I take back the majority of my snark. I can just see this poor guy trying to talk down some crazy iodine-hoarding acquaintance who is convinced this is Chernobyl parts II, III, and IV combined, and then not really seeing the harm in allowing the person to post his email next to baby pictures. My guess is that if he'd been invited on, say, cnn, he wouldn't have made the same pronouncements. But I could be wrong here, too, of course. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

It was posted here originally, but moved and edited since.

Of course, even with the limited data that's coming out, no one else is saying it's just a level 4 incident anymore. Reactor 2 is now where the biggest drama is. Plus it's unclear what's with the spent fuel stored at the plant. They can keep saying in all honesty that it's not Chernobyl because it's a different reactor and a different development of events, but it doesn't look all that certain that the effects won't get as bad.
 
Sorry to seem pedantic but this man is qualified to talk on this issue. The issue is not the nature of radiation and the fission process but the measurement and control of leakage and the reduction of heat . This requires the skills of an engineer, not a nuclear physicist.

If I may, I would be in complete agreement if the last sentence read:
"This requires the skills of a specialized engineer, not a nuclear physicist."

I never said a nuclear physicist should be called in. I just don't think a generic mechanical engineer (though I admit to only knowing German and American engineers) should make the following statement:

"I repeat, there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors. By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation."

The person sitting three feet away from me on the couch right now is a mechanical engineer. He can explain the theories of nuclear energy, power plants, meltdowns, cooling, etc, ad nauseum. I've been peppering him with questions for days but he won't make non-waffling comment on radiation release, even though he took a couple of nuclear physics/engineering electives as an undergraduate.

Ditto for every other engineer I know. While it may seem like a simple measurement issue, that type of measurement is totally outside standard ME eduction, and outside most of their current work experience.

Dr. Oehman might have a PhD in systems engineering, but a bachelors in ME puts him at the same level as a regular old ME. Unfortunately, at this point I think we can safely say that Dr. Oehmen was flat out wrong in his assessment. I wish he'd been correct. :(

-T
 
Here's some more recent stuff on Fukushima:-

This one sums it all up rather well:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/page2.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushima_reactor_update/

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77606.html

So now we know (or at least know what they want us to know).
Notice that the intensity of the earthquake has been revised upwards, to 9.0

Sadly, those are not very recent and not very informative either. There was an explosion at number 2 reactor since, and apparently the torus below the containment vessel (but, they say, not the vessel itself) has been damaged.

Worse, there was a fire at reactor number 4, one of the three reactors that had been shut down for maintenance before the earthquake. The fire was in the storage pond (bad news!) and resulted in release of radioactivity that's already been admitted to pose a threat to human health. All but the necessary personnel have been evacuated from the plant. People in the next 10 miles around the already evacuated 10 miles have been warned to stay indoors. Mild levels of radioactivity have been detected in Tokyo.
 
Japan won't die. They are a tough, well organized people. They survived the obliteration by atomic bombs of two of their major cities, and the firebombing of other cities. Earthquakes and typhoons don't slow them down very much. They will make short work of this business with nuclear reactors going haywire, and just keep on truckin.
 
From here.
"The incident has taken on a completely different dimension compared to Monday. It is clear that we are at level six," Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of France's Nuclear Safety Authority, said last night.

"The order of gravity has changed."

The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine registered as a maximum seven on the international scale.

The 1979 Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania, US, registered as five.
I don't know squat about levels of radiation, but if Chernobyl was a seven and this is now a six, I kinda don't think that anyone can guarantee that there won't be any significant release of radioactivity.

I know RR posted this to mock all those running around screaming about "radiation" and "Japan is gonna die..." but his mockery is sounding really hollow at this point. I don't think hysteria helps, but I think those mocking the hysteria are just as bad if not worse. We're not talking about an x-ray here. We're talking about a nuclear reactor. If the hysterical are taking it out of perspective, well, so are those dismissing it as nothing worse than a beer from a high radiation zone (and how much radiation is that anyway?).
 
Japan won't die. They are a tough, well organized people. They survived the obliteration by atomic bombs of two of their major cities, and the firebombing of other cities. Earthquakes and typhoons don't slow them down very much. They will make short work of this business with nuclear reactors going haywire, and just keep on truckin.

Japan won't die, agreed, but this mess is going to slow them down for a while. Even with the extent of the devastation from the quake and the tsunami, yes, they will clean up and carry on.

The mess with the nuclear reactors is going to be a long term problem. When a reactor core melts, it is never a short term thing, even if the "third layer" of containment is intact. Radiation levels outside of the plant are now listed as being dangerous to human health, so I suspect that "intact" has become a relative term.

The earthquake was considerably more powerful than the plant was designed to withstand. Then there was the loss of coolant capacity due to lack of power from the grid and the loss of back-up diesel generators. Fuel rods in at least three of the cores have partially melted. There have been a series of explosions.

While I'm sure people on site are well trained and various experts have gone to Japan to help, they can only work with what they've got, which are some seriously damaged reactors.

"They will make short work of this business with nuclear reactors going haywire"...I don't think so...
 
Back
Top