Japanese nuke problems

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Carl it is good to have your assurances as to just how safe NP really is. ..I wonder how some folk who have sufferred from the minimal dangers of a meltdown or explosion. I think perspective is the word to focus upon. How many Coal Power Stations blow up leaving absolute devestation.
Am I unreasonable to be worried that we could be affected in the long term.
We have no idea what really went into the air andthe water so is there no reason for concern.
Alex

In many ways, nuclear powerplants are far safer than coal fired ones, and for one thing don't pump vast amounts of crud into our environment. However, they're not entirely safe and when things do go wrong, for whatever reasons, you have the problems of very dangerous substances being potentially released into the environment. There's always a reason to be concerned with the release of radioactive substances into the environment, but things have to be put into perspective. It's what gets released that is the crux of the matter. Most of the substances that are released by faulty nuclear plants are short lived isotopes. Most have half-lives less than 40 years. But more importantly, they're high reactive substances, chemically. That's what makes them harmful when it comes to biological systems...they can be taken up readily in food chains. Some are chemically toxic, but most aren't. It's then their radioactivity does the damage. However, being highly reactive chemically, much of it will be sequestered into the environment in the sediments in lakes, rivers, oceans etc. Also in small quantities as solutes in water.

The big danger is if you get uranium and plutonium in the environment. Uranium is only mildly toxic unless ingested/inhaled and you can hold a piece of uranium in your hands. I've done it myself. But plutonium is another story entirely. However, over long periods of time, because of the radioactivity which can be given off by both, they can be a hazard...plutonium far more so than uranium. Uranium is weakly radioactive in its pure metallic (refined) state. As I said, you can hold it without any trouble. Just feels slightly warm to the touch. Unless you have a critical mass of the material, of course. But plutonium you can't...it is also far more radiogenic than uranium. You need to have lead lined gloves and make sure it's not close to its critical mass.

The big thing with uranium and plutonium is their long half-lives. U235 is 704 million years, P239 is 24000 years. They hang around for a long time and that's what makes them scary. However, with the naturally occurring isotopes and the synthetics (under critical mass), their decay mode is by alpha emissions (Helium nuclei) and they can't penetrate your skin. A sheet of paper will stop alpha particles. It's only when they're at critical mass do you get large emissions of gamma rays, which will do the damage. That's what the scaremongers berate you with and what they don't tell you about it. For a nuclear reaction to occur where gamma emissions are present, the metals have to be at or close to critical mass, which for plutonium is about 5kg and about 7-8kg for uranium. The balls of metal are about as big as a grapefruit.

The immediate radioactive damage caused by atomic bombs and certain highly radioactive substances such as caesium and iodine isotopes is because of the gamma radiation they give off. That's what they play upon with people's minds. That and the other effects of the bombs (mostly the tremendous heat they produce and the burning of people due to this).

If you want to find out about uranium, plutonium and the other radioactive substances, just go and look them up. All the info is there for you to make up your own mind about it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Just for the record, if the article is correct there were multiple total meltdowns as well as melt throughs.

As well the west coast of America had a 34% spike in infant mortality at the same time as the Japanese problem was unfolding.

As I understand the situation with NP if absolutely nothing ever goes wrong there is still the problem of disposing of not only the spent fuel but also the spent fuel containers? When something does go wrong (and it is as inevitable as air-planes crashing) then the problems all become deadly.

How is NP a green solution?
Brian

That spike in infant mortality is totally coincidental, Brian. There is no statistical correlation and it could've happened in any case and most likely would've. I'd be more inclined to put it down to environmental or social problems along the west coast. Pollution, drug abuse, or whatever. The fact that it happened when the Fukushima is just a coincidence and in typical media fashion they'd beat it up or make connections that weren't even there.

NP is a lot "greener" than coal, but it still has its problems. I can tell you now, nothing we do in generating power is truly green. Not even solar energy. All this talk about "green" power is nonsense and a beat up. The only way you're ever going to get "green" power without any perceived environmental issues (so far as we know) is to harness ZPE. But then you have to have an efficient and safe way to distribute that energy. Plus, we don't yet know what taking power directly out of spacetime itself will do so far as the environment is concerned. More to the point, how do you even extract it in the first place??. There's plenty of it there...there's enough ZPE in a space the size of a coffee cup to run the power needs of the entire planet for the next billion years, but what will extracting it do??

See what I mean about this "green" business.

Want to be truly "green"....kill off 99% of the world's population and then go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen or the Aborigines. That's the only way you'll do it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

"Renewables" for producing this amount of power, (instantaneous), were not available over this time frame. They are still not available. Wishing that such alternatives was/are real does not make them real. Technological development is not purely a function of investment. Technology development is usually a medium-high economic risk factor. Economic risk can result in serious widespread massive economic disaster and massive death/casualities.

I'll say it again … Technological development is not purely a function of investment … the relationship between the acquisition of knowledge derived from research, is not linearly related to investment funding. Humans take time to accumulate knowledge. Time is an independent variable, and is invariant of human investment.



Yep ! I'll go one step further, and state that people need to learn what parameters are involved in 'making something happen'.

All conversations on this topic constantly imply that humans can make viable technical/economic alternatives appear out of thin air. There is no historical evidence of this.

Only belief and blind faith.

Lets get clear about that.

Cheers

Precisely, Craig. The general public thinks that alternatives can be pulled out of a bag like a magic trick and this has been fostered upon them by whatever "anti-this or that" "green" organisations have proselytised over the years. They actually do more harm than good because they spread erroneous ideas about what can and cannot be done and what they believe is "green" actually isn't when you care to really look into it. All they do is polarise people's opinions and things get nowhere, fast.

It takes time and effort to produce new technologies. It also costs a lot of money and it takes the investment of a lot of intellectual capital to realise a new technology. You can't pull them out of hat, nor can you rush them into production or even into reality. The operative factor here is time. You can invest vast amounts of money, which will help, but it still takes time to come up with and then realise a new technology. No amount of money will pull a new idea out of a hat.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Precisely, Craig. The general public thinks that alternatives can be pulled out of a bag like a magic trick and this has been fostered upon them by whatever "anti-this or that" "green" organisations have proselytised over the years. They actually do more harm than good because they spread erroneous ideas about what can and cannot be done and what they believe is "green" actually isn't when you care to really look into it. All they do is polarise people's opinions and things get nowhere, fast.

It takes time and effort to produce new technologies. It also costs a lot of money and it takes the investment of a lot of intellectual capital to realise a new technology. You can't pull them out of hat, nor can you rush them into production or even into reality. The operative factor here is time. You can invest vast amounts of money, which will help, but it still takes time to come up with and then realise a new technology. No amount of money will pull a new idea out of hat.

Ahhh .. but then there are those who think humans are capable of everything … 'humans can do anything when they put their minds to it !!'

Get real … things that roll off the end of a tongue are just that … dribble.

Cheers
PS: From 'grouchy old Craig'.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ahhh .. but then there are those who think humans are capable of everything … 'humans can do anything when they put their minds to it !!'

Get real … things that roll off the end of a tongue are just that … dribble.

Cheers
PS: From 'grouchy old Craig'.

Humanity can do anything if we put our minds to it....but that still takes time

How long??...who knows.

[xelasnave]

Thanks Carl that was excellent. So how much plutonium has got away woud be the main concern but not the only one.
I have been living with only one solar panel, a 700 watt genny Android 100 amp battery for so long I can't see any problems other than petrol for me but for city folk energy must be a big worry. The boat is sail power but I have to get a new diesel to do any serious trips really.
Germany say they will drop NP but I can't se.e them doing that...I can't see alternate power filling the void...individuals may get by with my set up but how coupd you run all their factories on solar etc...
I was interested in your zpe comments
Alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The only way you're ever going to get "green" power without any perceived environmental issues (so far as we know) is to harness ZPE. But then you have to have an efficient and safe way to distribute that energy. Plus, we don't yet know what taking power directly out of spacetime itself will do so far as the environment is concerned. More to the point, how do you even extract it in the first place??. There's plenty of it there...there's enough ZPE in a space the size of a coffee cup to run the power needs of the entire planet for the next billion years, but what will extracting it do??

Extracting useful ZPE results in violation of Conservation of Energy …

Thar ain't no such thing as a 'perpetual motion machine' (except in the hallowed church of cosmic plasma).

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Want to be truly "green"....kill off 99% of the world's population and then go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen or the Aborigines. That's the only way you'll do it.

Carl, you are reading my mind

[jeff65 (Jeff)]

Questions of the risk / reward balance of nuclear power generation in ideal situations aside, something I'd like to see discussed is whether a corporation is the best risk manager for nuclear power generation.

If trusting the profit motive of an entity with limited liability is the best we can come up with, I say there is no way that it is worth the risk!

[CraigS]

Try this for some credible assessment of the real facts on the Fukushima situation ..

From the same IAEA website[/URL] … Radiation in Everyday Life (worth the read to put it all in perspective):

No human activity or practice is totally devoid of associated risks. Radiation should be viewed from the perspective that the benefit from it to mankind is less harmful than from many other agents.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Extracting useful ZPE results in violation of Conservation of Energy …

Thar ain't no such thing as a 'perpetual motion machine' (except in the hallowed church of cosmic plasma).

Cheers

My father told me there is no perpetual motion and I spent my life trying to proove him incorrect Android so far he wins but his words caused my interest in all the things that I am interested in...
Alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

My father told me there is no perpetual motion and I spent my life trying to proove him incorrect Android so far he wins but his words caused my interest in all the things that I am interested in...
Alex

Give up trying to prove people incorrect, Alex.

Try living in a world where there are only shades of grey, opinions and physical reality … (and focus on distinguishing physical realities from the rest).


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Extracting useful ZPE results in violation of Conservation of Energy …

Thar ain't no such thing as a 'perpetual motion machine' (except in the hallowed church of cosmic plasma).

Cheers

Not necessarily....we've yet to really play around with this physics. In any case, if you can't measure the quantity of energy within a system due to quantum uncertainty, who's to say the law applies anyway. It maybe like GR, only a macroscopic level reality and when you consider quantum level processes then the law becomes approximate or even untenable at a certain level of process. That doesn't mean to say that perpetual motion is possible. Just that we don't know what's really going on and it maybe that we have to modify our understanding of energy conservation on these levels (like gravity) in order to be able to see what's really happening.

Still doesn't let off the EU guys or any other mob of crackpots

[Brian W (Brian)]

Indeed Carl at the core of the energy problem is the simple question 'for how many people'. In the Philippines we are now having serious debates about artificial birth control.

You are also correct that there is no apparent connection other than the time frame for t5he infant mortality.

I also agree that there is no 'green' solution and that if there is a solution to be found that it will not happen over night.

But if I may try to redirect this thread back to the original concern.

Is the nuke problem in Japan as bad as the linked article claims?
Brian

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by jeff65

Questions of the risk / reward balance of nuclear power generation in ideal situations aside, something I'd like to see discussed is whether a corporation is the best risk manager for nuclear power generation.

If trusting the profit motive of an entity with limited liability is the best we can come up with, I say there is no way that it is worth the risk!

I agree with you totally here. The whole socioeconomic system is at fault here. Given what can happen, I wouldn't trust any corporation to handle a system such as nuclear energy. It's well and dandy whilst everything is going fine, but then you see the true nature of the beast rear its head when something goes wrong. It's the same with the governments. Take the credit for the good bits, but pass the buck, lie and obfuscate when things go pear shaped. However, all organisations are like that. Whether they're government, business, NGO's, env' groups etc. Power attracts the wrong type of people and everyone else allows them to gain that privileged position. That's where the problems start.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Is the nuke problem in Japan as bad as the linked article claims?
Brian

You have to look at all the evidence and weigh it up. You also have to be mindful of the various agendas that are raising their heads here. This disaster will be milked for all it's worth, by both sides. What you have to do is cut through all the garbage and find the answer for yourself.

Unfortunately, most people are not capable of and/or unwilling to do this and they just follow whatever they feel suits them best. That's when the real problems (apart from the "actual" problems themselves) arise.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Give up trying to prove people incorrect, Alex.

Try living in a world where there are only shades of grey, opinions and physical reality … (and focus on distinguishing physical realities from the rest).


Cheers

I conceed my motivation must appear as you see it...but I don't care about being right or wrong only to find out if long held beliefs are valid....the quest for pp saw me at 11 yrs old working out the electric motor...that was my first attempt to beat pp but that lead me to realise the relevence of friction Android energy conservation violation...so I must see the benefits of the hunt for pp.
Ultimately we may find a pp energy source but getting past friction or ware and tear would seem impossible.....thinking about pp is like thinking about nothing. ...there is so much to it when you think about it.
alex

[xelasnave]

The ultimate irony with NP is that we still are only producing steam power and in that regard have not moved the game far forward. As a friend said why can't we just get electricity without steam...seem a small ask but how?
Alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The ultimate irony with NP is that we still are only producing steam power and in that regard have not moved the game far forward. As a friend said why can't we just get electricity without steam...seem a small ask but how?
Alex

You could use the gamma rays to generate the electricity....much like visible light photons hitting a solar array. Only problem is the gamma rays would tend to ionise the material they hit and you'd lose charge. What you'd need is a material which could undergo the photoelectric effect and create electron-hole pairs using very high energy photons, without completely ionising or not at all. Then you could bombard it with the gamma rays and extract the electricity from the array without eroding it away. If you can come up with that material, you'll win a Nobel Prize.

[morls (Stephen)]

Hi Brian,

To address your initial question, I've done a summary of some information I found at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/

I'm not sure about the copyright/legal issues involved if I upload a document that summarises and uses directly material from a website, so I leave off doing that for now. If it isn't a copyright issue I'd be glad to upload it...

I'll try to sum up what I've been able to find out...

---------------

First, some terminology. I’ve used this document to learn about Boiling Water Reactors: http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/npp2.pdf

I’ll use these terms:
RPV - Reactor Pressure Vessel. As I understand it, this is where water comes into direct contact with the nuclear material. This generates steam which drives turbines, thus generating power. This water is highly radioactive.

RCV – Reactor Containment Vessel. This encloses the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), other primary components and piping. Reinforced concrete, designed to prevent the release of radioactive substances.

SFP - Spent Fuel Pool. The spent fuel is stored in a pool on-site, and needs to be kept covered in water and cooled at all times to prevent possible heat buildup and reactivity.

TEPCO - Tokyo Electric Power Company, operators of the Fukushimi Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

--------------

So, it seems the main issues are with the Fukushimi Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. There are 4 reactors there.

There are 5 main criteria used to describe the situation at the plant:

1. CONTROL OF REACTIVITY.

This is achieved when the reactor is subcritical, and this can be demonstrated and maintained. This has been achieved in all 4 reactors.

2. RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL

This function requires keeping the coolant temperature sufficiently below boiling point at atmospheric pressure, covering the damaged core with water, having off-site and backup power available and having long term closed-loop heat removal capability.

This has not been achieved in Reactors 1,2 and 3.

Reactor 1:
- Changes in Temperature and pressure are not significant.
- Provisional analysis shows that fuel pellets melted and fell to the bottom of the RCV. TEPCO also reported that leakage of cooling water from the RPV is likely to have occurred.

If I understand this correctly, it means the fuel pellets have melted through the RPV, and are now on the floor of the RCV. This has resulted in the leaking of highly radioactive water into the RCV. It is likely this water has leaked from the RCV.

Reactor 2:
-Changes in temperature and pressure are not significant.
-Water level of reactor core is about 1500mm and 2100mm from the top of active core. Fresh water injection is provided, however closed loop heat removal is not yet established.

I understand this to mean the upper part of the nuclear fuel is exposed. This is not good, as it needs to be covered in water to keep the temperature under control.

Reactor 3:
There have been increases in temperature noted. How significant this is, I don't know.

3. Containment Integrity

This criteria is met when the containment is leak-tight, containment pressure maintained below design limits and hydrogen explosion prevented.

This has not been achieved in reactors 1, 2 and 3.

Unit 1
Pressure stabilised below design limits, but safe state not achieved.

Unit 2
Containment believed to be damaged.

I take this to mean the RCV is damaged.

Unit 3
(quoting directly from IAEA document)
"On 20 March a sudden significant drop in pressure in the reactor pressure vessel and a decrease in the containment pressure occurred. The reasons for this are unknown. One possible explanation is a loss of containment integrity; however, the pressure in the containment was decreasing slowly and at present remains stable at around atmospheric. In addition water on the turbine building floor of Unit 3 does not show high level radioactivity. Images showed a crack in the primary containment and steam being released from the reactor building."

4. Confining radioactive material

This is achieved when RPV doesn't leak, or leak is confined. Leakages from containment should be prevented or controlled.

This has been partially achieved in reactor 1, and not achieved in reactors 2 and 3.

Reactor 1:
RPV is assumed to be leaking. The location of the leak is not clear as the level in the reactor is not known. TEPCO reports that leaking of cooling water from RPV due to pellets melted and falling to the bottom of the RPV is likely to have occurred.. TEPCO considers the actual damage to RPV is limited.

Reactor 2
RPV is assumed to be leaking. Location of leak is not clear as the level in the reactor is not known. Containment is believed to be damaged. Construction of a cover above the reactor building has to be pursued.

Reactor 3
RPV is assumed to be leaking. Location of the leak is not clear, as the level in the reactor is not known. Containment is believed to be damaged. Construction of a cover above the reactor building should be pursued.

5. Limiting Effects of Releases

No additional releases shall be anticipated, and radiation monitoring effects shall be available.

Reactor 1
Intermittent releases have been observed. RPV and RCV are assumed to be leaking. Opening of the airlock in reactor building did not lead to measurable increase in releases to environment.

Reactor 2
Intermittent releases have been observed. Samples of water in the turbine building floor show high radioactivity releases from the reactor and the containment to the environment.

Reactor 3
Intermittent releases have been observed. RPV and pressure containment vessel are assumed to be leaking. Highly contaminated water flew out into the sea from a pit near the intake channel of Unit 3 (NISA report May23).

Again, a lot, close to all of this actually, is copied directly from the IAEA site and documents.

One thing I have noticed is that they are only able to assume certain conditions, as the site is too dangerous to be observed directly.

Regarding the Spent Fuel Pools, in all cases periodical fresh water injection serves to reduce the SFP temperature. However the closed loop cooling system is not operative, and this must be reinstated.

Now some information from http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/radio...nt-2-june-2011

Again, I am quoting directly and summarising...

RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING AND CONSEQUENCES OF FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

This document contains lots of data regarding emission monitoring that I can’t comment about as I don't understand it.

Key points from document:

Deposition of I‐131 and Cs‐137 in 47 prefectures
I‐131 – (Radioactive Iodine?) Not detected since 18 May
Cs‐137– (Radioactive Caesium?) Detected in a few prefectures over a few days. Low levels ranging from 2.2 to 91 Bq/m2

Protective actions
• Drinking water: All restriction lifted
• The Government of Japan has announced evacuation measures:
– Beyond distances of 30 km from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants
– NISA: evacuation of the “Planned Evacuation Zones” within Iitate village and Kawamata town commenced on 15 May.

Food Monitoring and Food Restrictions (Reported 19 – 31 May)
• 818 samples from 18 prefectures
• Over 40% of monitoring is in Fukushima prefecture
• Over 93% of samples indicated Cs‐134 /Cs‐137 or I‐131 were not detected or were below the Japanese regulation values
• Less than 7% were above the Japanese regulation values for Cs‐134 /Cs‐137 and/or I‐131
• Restrictions on the distribution and/or consumption of specific foods in certain areas of Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures remain in place


So, there seems to be limited impact on food supplies. However, I do remember hearing somewhere that the Japanese regulation values were changed after this incident, raising the minimum exposure guidelines. This is not something I am sure of though, and needs further research to confirm or otherwise.

Finally, I'll again summarise and quote directly from the following document:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/marin...nt-2-june-2011

MARINE ENVIRONMENT MONITORING

General Comments:

The contamination of the marine environment has occurred both through atmospheric fallout or washout with precipitation, and through discharges of contaminated water into the sea

Discharge to the marine environment decreased significantly over time since end of March; concluding from the near field concentration measurements, up to now, more than 99 % of the activity was discharged between 28th of March and 11th of April.

There is a further continuous discharge of contaminated water into the marine environment with variable activities and activity ratios between I-131 and the two dominating radio-caesium nuclides.

TEPCO and MEXT are continuing to conduct programmes for sea water sampling and to perform measurements. Also marine food and several sediment stations are now monitored.

Conclusions on the impact to the marine environment
• The highest levels of radioactive substances are still measured close to the Nuclear Power Stations Fukushima, namely at the screen of Unit 2, 30 m, 330 m and 10 km near-shore. The levels showed a decreasing trend until beginning of May but remained relatively constant since then.
• Higher activities are also found in surface sediments near the discharge areas of the NPPs.
• Concentration data from about 30 km off-shore are lower and most of the analyses were below the limit of detection at the applied methods (about 10 Bq/L).
• There is a continuous outflow of contaminated water from the site, which keeps the levels on the monitoring stations of TEPCO near the shore relatively constant.

Conclusions
In recent days, a significant increase of I-131 and - to a less extent
Cs-134/Cs-137 near the discharge area was observed
• Further dilution in the Pacific will lead to lower concentrations of longer lived radionuclides. Traces from the releases from Fukushima NPPs will be taken up by the Kuroshio-current system in the north Pacific and transported across the Ocean.


So, it seems there is continuing leaking of contaminated materials into the ocean, which is entering the oceanic current systems and being transported across the ocean. How significant this is I cannot comment on, but as there is a continuous outflow from the site I think there will be increasing residual contamination until this flow is stopped. Whether this is of a level to significanty impact the ecosystem, or alternatively register above background levels, is something I don't know.


I hope this helps Brian. I wanted to learn for myself more about what was exactly happening. I've tried to find sources that are as impartial as possible. It seems there are a lot of vested interests and agendas that I don't understand going on here, and it's kind of hard to get through all the noise. Hopefully by being as factual as possible we can move our understanding forward a bit.

I hope if anyone can interpret the data and offer more expert analysis than my own humble efforts they will chip in.

Cheers

Stephen