Fukushima Status?

[Howard1955]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I may be repeating someone. But because my family and I have been involved in the nuclear power industry, I'll put in my two cents.

Regarding the discussion about the safety of nuclear power plants: For the Fukushima reactors and others that are similarly designed, that conversation is over. They can, and sometimes do, have meltdowns. In the case of Fukushima, it's a catastrophic meltdown.

How bad it will get is anybody's guess. It will depend on how much fuel has gone/will go into meltdown, how hot it gets, and where gravity takes it. A worst-case scenario could be a radioactive plume of steam, if the fuel is pulled down into a body of water.

It'll basically have to burn itself out - and that's going to take a long, long time. We humans were very foolish and arrogant to build such things.

 

[PiratePast40]

There really is no such thing as a harmless dose of ionizing radiation. Just because no observable damage occurred does not mean the dose was harmless. One alpha, or beta particle, or Xray can do serious damage if internalized.

If that we true, humans wouldn't exist. We are exposed to naturally occurring, ionizing radiation every second of our lives, as has every human being that has ever lived. Don't know where you heard that, but it's a bunch of baloney. Existence and being measurable do not equate to being a hazard.

I've spent my entire adult life in the field of radiation protection and health physics with commercial power, DoE, Dod, NASA, and private labs. I think I have some standing when it comes to amounts of radiation exposure and biological damage.

 

[bbbass]

I like the vid one of these robots took looking at the hole underneath. Looks like the set of Alien/Aliens, very cool errrr, hot!

 

[Srbasbol2]

They just released video of the first robot that failed. Looked like a good plan, but if you observe how the robot "blasted" at the melted down fuel, which is oddly disc shaped, it caused the radioactive fuel to fall further into the depths of the reactor. I must admit, the agility of robots has improved greatly in the last few years. Video clip below.





















Ok no more bourbon for me tonight. Back to you...

 

[Hook686]

If that we true, humans wouldn't exist. We are exposed to naturally occurring, ionizing radiation every second of our lives, as has every human being that has ever lived. Don't know where you heard that, but it's a bunch of baloney. Existence and being measurable do not equate to being a hazard.

I've spent my entire adult life in the field of radiation protection and health physics with commercial power, DoE, Dod, NASA, and private labs. I think I have some standing when it comes to amounts of radiation exposure and biological damage.

Ignorance can be bliss .... Pick up a copy of John Gofman's book, 'Radiation and Human Health'

Radiation and Human Health: Updated and Abridged: John W. Gofman: 9780394713601: Amazon.com: Books .

Ever hear of cancer ? Being exposed to ionizing radiation every day does result in cell damage to humans. Some earlier in the lives than others. If you really have experience in health physics, then you know of Gofman's book and understand that one beta can damage one atom in one cell and result in a cancer. How many bullets does a person need shoot in the air in downtown New York City for it to become dangerous ?

 

[tac]

The Fukushima plant WAS old technology. New technology and designs would have eliminated the issue that caused the meltdown. The issue was with the loss of power to the plant and failure of the backup power generation due to the saltwater flooding the site.

When I worked in Japan we used to do student visits there, and I recall the very first time I was there, looking at the location of this SEASIDE, TSUNAMI-prone, EARTHQUAKE zone installation's stand-by power set-up and wondering WTH?

What kind of mong designs and builds an emergency water circulation system BELOW the high-water mark?

Now they are paying for it, and for the next ten thousand years, too.

tac

 

[Goosebrown]

My dad built reactors for DuPont and quit 50 years ago knowing that things like this we're going to happen.

As Tac said. Who builds a reactor on a fault below high water mark?

 

[PiratePast40]

Ignorance can be bliss .... Pick up a copy of John Gofman's book, 'Radiation and Human Health'

Radiation and Human Health: Updated and Abridged: John W. Gofman: 9780394713601: Amazon.com: Books .

Ever hear of cancer ? Being exposed to ionizing radiation every day does result in cell damage to humans. Some earlier in the lives than others. If you really have experience in health physics, then you know of Gofman's book and understand that one beta can damage one atom in one cell and result in a cancer. How many bullets does a person need shoot in the air in downtown New York City for it to become dangerous ?

Is it possible that cell interaction with one photon or particle can damage the cell? Of course it is, but there are other possible outcomes besides cell damage. You are indicating that any and all exposure results in cancer and that is simply not true. Not sure if you're being an alarmist or the sophomore sitting in the back of the class with his hand up saying "I know something, pick me".

 

[Mister Bisley]

My point is....what happens in the case of complete electrical grid shut down or EMP from solar flares or an attack of some sort?

While I'm no expert...Everything I have read about the safety of these new plants, has to do with computers and electricity. They talk about all these scenarios of how this will do that in this case and whatever, but they don't mention complete grid failure.

Backup generators will only last so long if you can't renew the diesel fuel or recharge the battery source that are powering the backups.

 

[Raidingtime]

The irony of the Fukushima disaster is that had the Tsunami hit 3 months later than it did, there would have been no issue. Before everyone beats up on Mr. Jacobs for making statements about nuclear power being "perfectly safe", you should know that he is not completely wrong. The Fukushima plant WAS old technology. New technology and designs would have eliminated the issue that caused the meltdown. The issue was with the loss of power to the plant and failure of the backup power generation due to the saltwater flooding the site. Without power, the coolant pumps to the reactor failed and this in turn caused the meltdown. The current designs take advantage of natural convection to circulate the coolant water so that even if power is lost and/or pumps fail, enough water is circulated to prevent a disaster. The Fukushima plant was scheduled to receive an upgrade to their cooling systems within the next 90 days which would have implemented this design just before the Tsunami occurred. This by the way all came from an in depth article one year after the disaster that was published in the IEEE magazine.... I think there is always a risk with nuclear power, but as our technology continues to improve, i think its not an unreasonable source of power.....

And for the love of Mary, Joseph, and all the barnyard critters, please don't bring Homer Simpson into the discussion.

Nailed the explanation.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I'll let the arm-chair quarterbacks handle this one....

 

[Libertas7]

I'll let the arm-chair quarterbacks handle this one....

That's arm-chair COMMANDO too you!

 

[Certaindeaf]

At least they can just move away from it for a "while".

that was a joke.. here's a pic of Tokyo.. click on it a couple times

 

[Vorpalis]

I realize I'm bringing facts to a feelings fight here, buuuuut...

My point is....what happens in the case of complete electrical grid shut down or EMP from solar flares or an attack of some sort

You missed this part of @Crohnos01 's post:

"...The current designs take advantage of natural convection to circulate the coolant water so that even if power is lost and/or pumps fail, enough water is circulated to prevent a disaster."

Current designs don't need external or even internal electricity for either the moderator or cooling to function; they have been designed to be physically incapable of melting-down, so that even someone at the reactor's controls couldn't make it happen if they tried; some designs cannot have a steam explosion, like at Fukushima, because they don't use water as moderator or coolant, or they're designed to cool and condense any steam and send it back into the reactor to cool it, without internal or external electricity. Beyond the safety of the reactor itself, there are even designs now that "burn" nuclear waste – their own or that from other reactors – so that issue has also been solved. Or it would be, if the public's fear of nuclear energy didn't prevent the new designs from being made.

Judging the safety of nuclear energy, in its entirety, based on catastrophes with first- and second-generation reactor designs (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima), is like judging the safety of all cars based on the Model-T, Corvair, and Pinto. How many of you are scared of cars?

Whenever someone expresses concern or opposition to nuclear energy, it seems to be based on fear and misinformation, driven by hysterical media coverage and the person's choice not to educate themself (Don't believe stupid crap you read on the internet!). If this sounds like I'm describing anti-gun people, you're right; the phenomena are the same, differing only in subject.

 

[Hook686]

Is it possible that cell interaction with one photon or particle can damage the cell? Of course it is, but there are other possible outcomes besides cell damage. You are indicating that any and all exposure results in cancer and that is simply not true. Not sure if you're being an alarmist or the sophomore sitting in the back of the class with his hand up saying "I know something, pick me".

Read my first post ... I said "One alpha, or beta particle, or Xray can do serious damage if internalized." key words, 'Can' and, 'Internalized' Yes there are other possibilities, just as when stepping out on New Years Eve and shooting off one from your 44 magnum there are other possibilities than killing someone. Look at any way you like. Having worked in a USAF nuclear laboratory in the 1960s I am aware that there is no such thing as a, 'Safe' dose of ionizing radiation. Since it typically takes 25-30 years for a cancer to show itself, one does not know if damage occurered for a while. There are two sides to a bell curve. Do you feel lucky ?

 

[bbbass]

The human body is built to withstand some amount of cell damage and mutation. I think I've maxed out.

 

[Howard1955]

The human body is built to withstand some amount of cell damage and mutation. I think I've maxed out.

 

[Camelfilter]

View attachment 343995

Twice as much bacon? Mmm...here piggy piggy piggy

 

[Certaindeaf]

A lot of people probably think that France has harnessed escargot (giddyap!) or something for "clean energy" but 3/4 of their electrical production is nuclear.
rad, man!

granted, they are the size of a normal US county.. (don't know didn't check, lol)

 

[PiratePast40]

Read my first post ... I said "One alpha, or beta particle, or Xray can do serious damage if internalized." key words, 'Can' and, 'Internalized' Yes there are other possibilities, just as when stepping out on New Years Eve and shooting off one from your 44 magnum there are other possibilities than killing someone. Look at any way you like. Having worked in a USAF nuclear laboratory in the 1960s I am aware that there is no such thing as a, 'Safe' dose of ionizing radiation. Since it typically takes 25-30 years for a cancer to show itself, one does not know if damage occurered for a while. There are two sides to a bell curve. Do you feel lucky ?

I believe that what you're referencing is the concept of exposure to rapidly dividing cells. We typically equate internal exposure from respiration and ingestion as being more damaging than external dose. The cells in the lungs and GI tract, as well as those in the blood forming organs, are continually renewing. That is why internal alpha and beta dose was considered more dangerous. In the mid 80's the overwhelming evidence indicated that the method of internal dose calculations via MPC's was incorrect. Based on recommendations from an international body of scientists (ICRP), dose is now assigned based on isotope, concentration, length of exposure, and specific organ. We now look at it from a "dose is dose" perspective regardless of the organ or source. The definition of dose has not changed and is still a measurement of biological damage. In the past, we perhaps did our jobs too well when warning people about internal radiation exposure. Because of that, we put people in respirators too often with dire warnings about alpha. Given what you've said about your history with radiation, I am assuming that many of the materials you were dealing with were alpha emitters. We now look to minimize dose by balancing dose from all sources to achieve the lowest reasonable achievable. That may mean that we allow people to be exposed to more internal dose if minimizing the external dose reduces the overall exposure.

Based on your experience, I can now see why you have the the ideas that you do. That was the thinking at the time, especially with the isotopes of concern in your area of expertise. I didn't start working in the nuclear field until the early 70's and that was related to power production and specifically naval submarine propulsion reactors. I have since been involved with commercial power generation as well as the DoE community. I have seen the change in the scientific community and subsequent regulatory changes.

There is no proven correlation to adverse health effects to low levels of radiation. Nor is there any truth to a statement saying that any interaction will lead to cancer. We now have decads of controlled studies on hundreds of thousands of occupational radiation workers to back that up. There is certainly a correlation to higher levels, and that has also been well studied and documented. Here is a short dissertation: NRC: Backgrounder on Biological Effects of Radiation

Hook686, I'm not trying to berate you and now understand where you're coming from. I am however, trying to set the record straight and saying that we are all exposed to ionizing radiation all the time. That exposure does not necessarily result in the damage that you believe it does.