Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flamingdem

(39,303 posts)
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:10 PM Nov 2013

TEPCO’s Risky Operation at Fukushima - The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177170/tepcos-risky-operation-fukushima#

Far be it from me to distract from the important blaming and shaming around the Obamacare website. But if we do have a minute left for our actual health, can we talk about the radiation threat that seems to be soaring on the Pacific?

I don’t want to frighten anyone unduly, so I’ll quote the calm people at Reuters:

The operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant will as early as this week begin removing 400 tons of highly irradiated spent fuel in a hugely delicate and unprecedented operation fraught with risk.

That’s Reuters. Nuclear researcher Harvey Wasserman says things more to the effect of “What the F’ity F. F?”

The point is, since an earthquake and tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi Plant in March of 2011, the fuel rods at Reactor Number Four have been in dangerously delicate shape. They can’t heat up, be exposed to air or break without releasing deadly gas, but the cooling pool they’ve been resting in is leaky and corroded by seawater and could never withstand another tremor or quake.

Starting any day now, Tokyo Electric or TEPCO, is going to begin plucking more than 1,500 brittle and potentially damaged fuel assemblies out of where they are and placing them in new casks.
80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TEPCO’s Risky Operation at Fukushima - The Nation (Original Post) flamingdem Nov 2013 OP
It got hot once already RobertEarl Nov 2013 #1
No, the explosion was caused by a hydrogen gas buildup. Sirveri Nov 2013 #11
Hydrogen? Nah RobertEarl Nov 2013 #25
So then what, specifically, exploded? Sirveri Nov 2013 #29
MOX RobertEarl Nov 2013 #35
That MOX exploded makes absolutely ZERO sense. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #42
Plutonium IS reactive, in that it oxidizes quickly. Sirveri Nov 2013 #50
Hydrogen explosions have occurred before in partial meltdowns. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #51
The data I have seen about TMI said they didn't suffer a hydrogen explosion. Sirveri Nov 2013 #55
You didn't see the hole? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #52
I'm looking at the before pictures, perhaps they were pre-Tsunami Sirveri Nov 2013 #57
The hole in #4 RobertEarl Nov 2013 #59
So then the building could still have trapped hydrogen. Sirveri Nov 2013 #61
Tepco admitted to rod chunks RobertEarl Nov 2013 #63
Do you have a cite for that information? Sirveri Nov 2013 #69
Tepco admitted it two years ago RobertEarl Nov 2013 #70
Your kind of claims belong in creative speculation because they're a conspiracy theory. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #40
I just explained the common sense RobertEarl Nov 2013 #44
No, climate deniers make things up. Which is exactly what you're doing. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #47
You are projecting? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #48
"Just talking real science" - Yes, real science like believing MOX could go critical... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #49
to be fair, reactors DO heat the ocean. Sirveri Nov 2013 #53
The argument was not that the reactors are emitting heat into the ocean... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #54
I know, I was giving you a hard time. Sirveri Nov 2013 #62
The steel reinforced building of #4 was wrecked. RobertEarl Nov 2013 #56
Yes, and I've stated elsewhere in this thread that a criticality in the pool would destroy it. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #58
All reactor criticality accidents of that nature were typically steam explosions Sirveri Nov 2013 #60
The official report does not mention exactly how each man died. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #67
So your theory is golden but other theories are CS? rhett o rick Nov 2013 #78
For those that think that nuclear power is clean and inexpensive, think again. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #2
The other thing is there is not many places to store nuclear waste in Japan davidpdx Nov 2013 #7
Good question. nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #8
Many countries ship out waste for reprocessing into products like PUREX. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #13
Do you have any links for that information? nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #14
Yes, I do. Japan possesses stockpiles of reprocessed material in France and the UK Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #15
Interesting info davidpdx Nov 2013 #23
Thanks. The nuclear waste isnt reprocessed into Purex. It's reprocessed into weapons grade rhett o rick Nov 2013 #64
I believe there is more than one method of reprocessing at the plants... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #68
They were counting on storing some at Fukishima. Fail. nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #66
Yeah, Fukashima is already a waste dump as it is davidpdx Nov 2013 #72
We have figured out how to permanently store spent fuel. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #12
Yep davidpdx Nov 2013 #22
I like deep borehole disposal. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #24
Wrong. We do not have a plan for long term storage of spent nuclear fuel. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #65
I know that there is a dispute over where to store it davidpdx Nov 2013 #71
"We have figured out how to permanently store spent fuel" BZzzzt RobertEarl Nov 2013 #26
Deep borehole disposal is actually a permanent, safe solution. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #28
Well, you better get on it, then. RobertEarl Nov 2013 #37
That is apocalypse porn and it has no basis in reality. Stop scaring people unnecessarily. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #38
Porn? No. Just Science RobertEarl Nov 2013 #41
None of the claims you are making in here are scientifically accurate. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #43
You are projecting? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #45
So in fact we havent figured out a way that is acceptable to the public. So a lot of good "figuring rhett o rick Nov 2013 #80
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #3
K & R !!! WillyT Nov 2013 #4
Discussed this with my students yesterday ybbor Nov 2013 #5
Well, hey RobertEarl Nov 2013 #6
400 tons of highly irradiated ANYTHING is mind boggling. freshwest Nov 2013 #9
Yes, as well as the amount of time some of the nuclear elements take flamingdem Nov 2013 #10
The half-life of the elements used at nuke power plants always... freshwest Nov 2013 #27
There won't be any plucking. The Rods are damaged and will fragment the moment they are fooled with Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #16
Will they even bother to carry it out flamingdem Nov 2013 #17
It's a scam. The entire thing is catch 22. Stop pouring water, and you have to evacuate the Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #18
What have you heard about the impact on the West Coast? flamingdem Nov 2013 #19
Listen carefully to this. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #20
thanks flamingdem Nov 2013 #21
Pretty good assessment Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #32
"Fukishima makes Chernobyl look like a boyscouts campfie." - Patently absurd. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #31
Snicker. Remember you said that. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #33
What's up with the snickering? What exactly is so funny? Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #36
Whatever you say. I'm not bothering to convince you, it's important to you that Fukishima's isnt a Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #73
It won't matter if they do fragment. They will be safely under water. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #30
Nothing is getting taken anywhere. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #34
What exactly does that mean? Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #39
Figure it out. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #74
Cross posted to this thread: Bennyboy Nov 2013 #46
As someone who was (and still is) 100 miles south of Ground Zero Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #75
EVERYONE who is concerned about or discussing this disaster chervilant Nov 2013 #76
There's a contingent who only appear to discuss the nuclear issue flamingdem Nov 2013 #77
The fuel rod removal is dangerous, to be sure. MineralMan Nov 2013 #79
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
1. It got hot once already
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:53 PM
Nov 2013

Hot enough to blow up the top floors of the building.

The condition of the fuel rods is unknown, really. They won't really know until they start yanking the rods out. Hopefully they will get enough out they can lower the amount of cooling water in the pool making for less of a weight problem when the next earthquake happens.

This site has a few pics of the operation and further info:
http://rt.com/news/fukushima-fuel-rod-removal-365/

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
11. No, the explosion was caused by a hydrogen gas buildup.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 08:55 PM
Nov 2013

They add hydrogen gas to the coolant to act as an oxygen scavenger. In addition water when subjected to a neutron flux breaks down into OH and H. Furthermore heat does not magically cause things to explode, it requires a reactive agent (in this case hydrogen gas).

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
25. Hydrogen? Nah
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:45 PM
Nov 2013

Let's look at this from a very simple view point, shall we, sirveri?

Numbers 1, 2 and 3 were said to have been hydrogen explosions.

#1 blew first. #2 they knocked a hole in the wall and vented out the gas.

#3 blew sky high. Then #4 a few days later blew up. So to believe it was a hydrogen explosion, we would have to believe that they knew hydrogen was blowing up their buildings and they prevented #2 from blowing, but they let #4 just sit there for four days without opening a vent like they did at #2?

Kinda blows a big ass hole in your theory. Eh?

No, what happened was that the pool ran out of water, the rods overheated, boiled off the water, and something exploded. It may have had some hydrogen in the explosion, but it was not a hydrogen explosion.

As the info in this thread elsewhere explains, if the rods get a bit out of line there can be a nuclear reaction of sorts. The rods in #4 already did.

While we are here, lets remember that pieces of plutonium were found in many places even miles from the explosions. That means either the reactor cores went up, or some rods in the fuel pools went up. There would be no other way for plutonium to go off site. Eh?

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
29. So then what, specifically, exploded?
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:05 PM
Nov 2013

You also assume competence and capacity, just because they drilled a hole doesn't mean they had proper ventilation, or that they had the capacity to do so in the other buildings, most likely due to a lack of on site power supplies. Lack of power is why cooling pumps failed in the first place, and disabled remote valve operations due to lack of power for solenoid and control panel operations.

So what did they have that was explosive? We know they had hydrogen. Fuel rods do not explode with that level of force, at worst they would split due to build up of fission product gasses. Steam does not explode. Excess thermal energy in the fuel cells would cause them to melt, not explode. It could have been reverse hydrogen embrittlement of the zircalloy cladding, but that just makes more hydrogen. These were not graphite moderated reactors, so that couldn't be the culprit like at Chernobyl. The only other option is that the rods were so hot that they severed chemical bonds of the coolant medium. The coolant medium was water (likely laced with NH4 for pH balance), which would release hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.

So our choices are, hydrogen from primary coolant, hydrogen from cooling tank coolant, or hydrogen from embrittled zircalloy cladding.

All of those are hydrogen, unless you have knowledge of another potential source of volatiles in the rooms (cans of paint, gasoline, etc etc etc).

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
35. MOX
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:22 PM
Nov 2013

Mixed Oxide fuel rods. Meaning plutonium.

Plutonium is very reactive. The science on plutonium is still being studied, but it's hard to study because it is so reactive.

Besides, the roof of #4 had a big hole in it, so it was vented.

I don't know what made building #4 blow up, no one does. The hydrogen explosion theory is not a good one due to the actual known situation.

There have been no vids of the #4 explosion. It seems to have happened at night, and no videos have been made public. We saw #1 blow up and it did appear to be a hydrogen explosion because it was kind of a clear explosion. But #3 explosion was a dirty explosion with two or three red flashes that some nuke scientists claim to be signs of critical reactions. #3 also had MOX fuel.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
42. That MOX exploded makes absolutely ZERO sense.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:40 PM
Nov 2013

Do you understand the kind of energy that would have been released had a criticality directly resulted in an explosion? The entire assembly and anything above it would have been obliterated.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
50. Plutonium IS reactive, in that it oxidizes quickly.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:35 AM
Nov 2013

The same is true of Uranium. Hence the OX part of MOX. OX = Oxide, it has already been preferential reacted with oxygen to form a stable compound.

Just because an object is reactive, does not make it a volatile compound capable of creating a chemical explosion. The idea that the 'science on plutonium is still being studied', doesn't make any sense. What specifically do you argue that they are studying about the properties of plutonium that would have bearing on the ability of it to spontaneously chemically explode? The spontaneous fission probability of the substance is well understood by physics, and I can give you probability rates for it with half life if desired.

Even if #4 had a big hole in the roof (which I haven't seen, though I admit it's possible due to shutdown maintenance, though the before pictures I am viewing do not show any large hole), that doesn't mean that it wasn't possible for there to be a gas pocket buildup elsewhere in the building that could have produced enough for to achieve an explosion. TEPCO claims the hydrogen that caused the explosion came from unit #3, which was adjacent to unit #4. This explanation is also a plausible source for the hydrogen.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
51. Hydrogen explosions have occurred before in partial meltdowns.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:40 AM
Nov 2013

Namely, Three Mile Island. They are a very real and highly probable occurrence in such a situation.

Your statements make perfect sense. And the poster you are responding to is claiming the MOX went critical. Which is an entirely different beast from a chemical reaction. Even if it was sourced from the pools, such an explosion resulting from a criticality would likely catastrophically damage the pools and the evidence does not show at all that the pools have been destroyed.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
55. The data I have seen about TMI said they didn't suffer a hydrogen explosion.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:48 AM
Nov 2013

Though they were highly cognizant of the potential, and they were fearful that one would occur. I'd have to look at source documents to confirm that information, TMI is actually a very interesting casualty sequence, makes for good reading. Who would have thought that not opening the isolation valves for a differential pressure detector could cause so much damage!

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
52. You didn't see the hole?
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:41 AM
Nov 2013

Well, that explains a lot.

But you do agree that the pool ran out of water, right?

I mean, how much do you know if you never even saw the hole in the roof before the explosion?

And how did plutonium get out side the plant boundaries? You really have a narrow view of the matter, so, well, have fun.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
57. I'm looking at the before pictures, perhaps they were pre-Tsunami
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:55 AM
Nov 2013

I will admit I didn't significantly source the date of the photo, so it could be old, but I haven't seen any casualty timeline where they took the time to cut a giant hole in the roof. I'm not sure why they would cut a hole in the roof for a refueling op, I always thought they had specialized loading bays to accept new fuel cell assemblies, but I have not toured this specific plant design. I was really hoping to get inside Vermont Yankee when I went out there for an interview, but we stayed in the office buildings, that plant was a similar model being an early generation BWR.

Yes, the pool did run out of water, that is part of the timeline.

The plutonium likely got outside plant boundaries because the cooling pool drained and then caught fire, fires in radioactive material have a 10% material uptake rate, which would have caused up to 10% of exposed MOX to go airborne as ash.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
59. The hole in #4
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:09 AM
Nov 2013

Was caused by debris from the explosion of #3. You can now include that in your timeline?

What was found outside the plant boundaries was chunks of MOX rods.

At least we agree that the pool rods caught fire. Being as this case was a first time event, the idea that any of us can with absolution declare what actually happened in that pool or the reactors would be absurd.

We don't know what happened. We may never know. The nuke industry is tightly guarding every fact they can about the occurrence. Yeah, you could call it a conspiracy to hide the facts. Only a damned idiot could not see that.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
61. So then the building could still have trapped hydrogen.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:17 AM
Nov 2013

Since the hole was not uniform or created for ventilation, it's quite possible for a hydrogen build up to have occurred. In the absence of large quantities of other volatiles, the only thing that makes sense is hydrogen.

Do you have a source for the finding of these 'chunks of MOX rods', I would be curious to read it.

While there was a fire in the cooling pool, I disagree that we can not declare to know what happened. All of this occured two and a half years ago, they have released technical reports on the casualty accident. Those reports are about 600 pages long, I have yet to finish reading them. They aren't very well organized by Western standards, though they likely make more sense to a native Japanese reader.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
63. Tepco admitted to rod chunks
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:26 AM
Nov 2013

You can have your theories, but I have shown why a hydrogen explosion can be discounted.

Being as that close inspections of the first three reactors has not been able to be made yet, and that new info about #4 pool is coming out daily, and that info states certain, shall we say, "peculiarities", it is safe to say we don't know.

The info from Tepco has been on a "you don't need to know" basis, yet the outsiders who, say for instance saw the hole in the roof #4, have been proven to be quite accurate with their theories.

But if you really have a hang-up on declaring you "know" what happened have fun.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
69. Do you have a cite for that information?
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:40 AM
Nov 2013

Like I said, I'm curious as to when they said that and the science behind it.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
70. Tepco admitted it two years ago
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:47 AM
Nov 2013

It is common knowledge with people who have been following the situation.

Given you have such a smart attitude, you should have no problem finding it.

Did you see the vid of #3? The shit flying through the air full of brown colored stuff? The big pieces falling back to earth? The mushroom shape?

And know that they can't get in and examine the reactor core because of the radiation? That all they can do is keep pumping more and more water into what used to be containment?

And, have you ever seen a MOX rod exposed to air?

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
40. Your kind of claims belong in creative speculation because they're a conspiracy theory.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:39 PM
Nov 2013

The explosions were from hydrogen. There's little reason to assume otherwise.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
44. I just explained the common sense
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:49 PM
Nov 2013

Are you so in love with nukes you are in total denial?

The MOX fuel reaction is a good theory. Duke power tried MOX fuel in their reactors, had problems and removed it. The stuff is not manageable.

You are really beginning to sound like one of those climate science deniers.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
47. No, climate deniers make things up. Which is exactly what you're doing.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:08 AM
Nov 2013

Which is exactly what you've been doing on this subject for as long as I have been here. Your claims are nothing more than fantasy.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
48. You are projecting?
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:13 AM
Nov 2013

I am not making up anything. Just talking real science, just like climate science. And common sense. Tell ya what, there have been a dozen like you over the last 30 months who have attacked just like you have. And they are all wiser now and have decided they were wrong. One day you will understand. One day the denial will leave you and you will be aware of the Truth.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
49. "Just talking real science" - Yes, real science like believing MOX could go critical...
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:34 AM
Nov 2013

and create an explosion that rips the roof off the building without completely obliterating the reactor assembly or anything directly above it, roof not included.

Or, more insanely, that the damaged reactors are literally heating the Pacific Ocean.

Do you realize how nonsensical that is?

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
53. to be fair, reactors DO heat the ocean.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:44 AM
Nov 2013

Standard PWR, naval nuclear. Reactor dumps heat to primary coolant, which dumps heat to steam generator and secondary systems, which dumps thermal energy to turbines and main sea water, main sea water returns to ocean hotter than it was accepted. So the reactor DOES heat up the ocean in that the reactor is the final heat sink.

That said it's negligible based on size and totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

The idea that a MOX rod can go critical is not an idea, we know they can go critical, otherwise they wouldn't be used for power generation. The idea that they will explode as opposed to simply melting their cladding and causing a fuel element failure however; has not been shown to exist.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
54. The argument was not that the reactors are emitting heat into the ocean...
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:47 AM
Nov 2013

But that the Pacific ocean, as a body of water surrounding Japan, was heating up as a result. Which is at face value absolutely absurd.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
62. I know, I was giving you a hard time.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:20 AM
Nov 2013

Figured I would keep you on your toes.

Although... no, ocean thermal losses would likely exceed input from that source, so I can't argue that they could be causing a slight temperature increase, other than in extreme close proximity to the plant discharge points. I don't feel like doing the math on that one, maybe if I got more sleep last night I could have had fun with the equations.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
56. The steel reinforced building of #4 was wrecked.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:50 AM
Nov 2013

You say "obliterating the reactor assembly"

Which goes to show you are not wise to the whole scene. Why do I say that? Because the reactor in #4 was empty. The reactor in #4 did not blow, the only thing that could have blown was the fuel pool. Which held hot MOX fuel.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
58. Yes, and I've stated elsewhere in this thread that a criticality in the pool would destroy it.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:56 AM
Nov 2013

We would be looking at a completely different accident if an explosion occurred as a direct result of a criticality.

If the pool was partially empty, especially if the assemblies were no longer completely covered, an explosion like that would lift the fuel assemblies into the air. Such criticality accidents have happened before and it has resulted in entire reactor assemblies lifting 10 feet into the air. Imagine what would happen in a spent fuel pool that is no longer full.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
60. All reactor criticality accidents of that nature were typically steam explosions
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:10 AM
Nov 2013

SL-1 killed 3 people due to a criticality accident caused by excess rod removal of the most reactive rod, this caused a thermal spike, flashing the coolant to steam and blowing the control rod out of the reactor. I heard it impaled the grunt working on it at the time and lodged in the ceiling, but that might just have been BS to make the story sound cooler.

Chernobyl also caused a criticality accident due to failure to account for decay reactivity from the Xenon transient. This caused the explosion of at least 4 reactor pressure vessels (Chernobyl RBMK design had each rod in a seperate pressure vessel, this allowed for in operation refueling, while exponentially increasing the number of potential failure points due to bad welds). The vessel surrounding those vessels was only rated to handle a single failure, and subsequently failed. The resulting steam explosion blew the lid off and through the sheet metal roof.

Both of those the criticality caused steam explosions, the rods themselves didn't actually explode in the traditional sense, though they did thermo-mechanically disassemble themselves, though not with the level of violence many would expect. Flashing water to steam however...

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
67. The official report does not mention exactly how each man died.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:35 AM
Nov 2013
http://sul-derivatives.stanford.edu/derivative?CSNID=00002221&mediaType=application/pdf

But every account of the story I've read has included the statement that the third man, who was not discovered immediately, was eventually found to be impaled to the ceiling from one of the rods.

It's also mentioned in this book...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dnes_zv-eF0C&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=sl-1+autopsy&source=bl&ots=_mZpIH6b-t&sig=krEtRUQYFyQeoMk9eP3XcMlKuPI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E1WIUrbpEaTBigLUz4CABQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sl-1%20autopsy&f=false

As there were no autopsies that I know of, there probably isn't an official declaration explaining the exact circumstances of each of their deaths.
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
78. So your theory is golden but other theories are CS?
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 11:29 AM
Nov 2013

We are all speculating including those of us that use so-called facts given to us by the government of Japan.

There is a good possibility that the explosions were hydrogen, but if you were interested in learning the truth, then you should be open-minded enough to listen to other theories. Do you know what happens when spent fuel rods get too hot? Doesnt it seem possible that the rods could have had a small explosion and distributed some plutonium around?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
2. For those that think that nuclear power is clean and inexpensive, think again.
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:05 PM
Nov 2013

First of all the construction of nuclear plants is terribly expensive. Special equipment and materials are needed that far exceed what's needed for a conventional plant. What that means, in part is that a whole lot of energy is used to build a nuclear plant. Then there's the risk. Insurance companies wont insure them. Too risky. Therefore, the taxpayers will be expected to pick up the tab for a nuclear accident. Another thing, the design that has spent fuel stored above the reactor is insane. And there are multiple similar plants in the good ole USofA. And we still havent figured out where to store spent fuel permanently. So across this nation, we have "parking lots" full of highly radioactive spent fuel rods just waiting for a solution for permanent disposition. Either that or an accident.

Just say no to nuclear power.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
7. The other thing is there is not many places to store nuclear waste in Japan
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:23 AM
Nov 2013

It is a relatively small country. I wonder if they export the waste.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
13. Many countries ship out waste for reprocessing into products like PUREX.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:01 PM
Nov 2013

And then have the reprocessed materials shipped back.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
64. Thanks. The nuclear waste isnt reprocessed into Purex. It's reprocessed into weapons grade
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:28 AM
Nov 2013

plutonium and some reusable nuclear fuel at a very high cost.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
68. I believe there is more than one method of reprocessing at the plants...
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:39 AM
Nov 2013

That create different products. Some of them are potentially weapons grade while others are used to generate reactor grade material.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
72. Yeah, Fukashima is already a waste dump as it is
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 04:51 AM
Nov 2013

With so little land and so many mountains, there aren't many places to store it. Especially given how many plants they have.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
12. We have figured out how to permanently store spent fuel.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 08:57 PM
Nov 2013

The main site was taken away and people have protested against trucking dry casks through their communities.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
22. Yep
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:19 PM
Nov 2013

Good point and we have lots of places. That's why I would think Japan would have a very tough time.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
65. Wrong. We do not have a plan for long term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:30 AM
Nov 2013

Currently it's stored in casks (supposedly temporarily) on the sights of the power plants.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
71. I know that there is a dispute over where to store it
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 04:50 AM
Nov 2013

I didn't know they were storing it onsite. That seems pretty dangerous.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
26. "We have figured out how to permanently store spent fuel" BZzzzt
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:52 PM
Nov 2013

We? You and who else?

No. All you have is a fantasy that 'We' can store rods permanently. We may be able to store them for a while, but then future generations will have to baby them their whole lives and their babies will have to baby them their whole lives, etc. ETC!

The others in your "We", do not even exist, so stop talking such nonsense.

And why in hell would you want the future to have to baby our waste for hundreds of years? What possesses you so that you feel you can dump our waste on the future generations?

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
28. Deep borehole disposal is actually a permanent, safe solution.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:59 PM
Nov 2013

Also, it's not hundreds of years. It's tens of thousands of years.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
37. Well, you better get on it, then.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:27 PM
Nov 2013

Otherwise in ten years this world is not gonna be the same. Maybe 5. 5 if we are lucky.

I have been against nukes for 27 years, since Chernobyl. And we haven't made any progress. It's up to the kids now. My advice? Get 'er done. Quit messing around. But first quit making any more waste.

Had the Romans had nuclear power, we'd be dealing with their waste even today.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
38. That is apocalypse porn and it has no basis in reality. Stop scaring people unnecessarily.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:31 PM
Nov 2013

This entire disaster has been frightening enough already. Having people who clearly don't know what they're talking about, I distinctly remember you claiming Fukushima was heating the Pacific, making wildly inaccurate claims is EXACTLY what we don't need. We need level headedness.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
41. Porn? No. Just Science
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:39 PM
Nov 2013

I know you love nuke power and you will do or say anything to keep it.

Now you say that deep borehole is the answer. The answer to what? You admit the science says it is dangerous and it must be deep buried, yet it is spreading now around the world and you claim that that wisdom is porn?

You sound just like the knuckleheads who 30 years ago said the world is too big for co2 to affect the climate. Deniers, they are called, eh?

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
43. None of the claims you are making in here are scientifically accurate.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:44 PM
Nov 2013

Anthropogenic global warming was demonstrated over half a century ago. Anyone claiming otherwise 30 years ago was denying a reality that had been proven long before.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
45. You are projecting?
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:57 PM
Nov 2013

And really not making a lick of sense. Way too emotional and lacking any sound science in any of your posts. Well, deep borehole may make sense, but you must wonder: Why haven't they deep buried it? Why don't they listen to you?

Yes, climate science was well established 30 years ago. Yet we still have deniers.

27 years ago, after Chernobyl, the science on nukes was established. Yet the deniers said it was because they was dumb Ruskies. Now we live with Fukushima spreading around the world and the deniers, save for a few, are all educated now. They have seen the Truth, and very few still argue there is no problem. Like you are doing. We'll just call it denier porn, eh?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
80. So in fact we havent figured out a way that is acceptable to the public. So a lot of good "figuring
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 11:47 AM
Nov 2013

out a way" has been. You might as well say we figured out that storing it on the moon is a way.

We have thousands of tons of dangerous spent fuel "temporarily" stored in casts on top of the ground all across the country and some have been there for decades. And since nothing is being done about it, it is clear that these "temporary" storage facilities are permanent. Or at least we will let the next generation worry about what to do with leaky corroded highly contaminated spent fuel. Oh yea, we are still generating the dangerous waste daily by the tons.

ybbor

(1,552 posts)
5. Discussed this with my students yesterday
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:26 PM
Nov 2013

Less than 10% of my High School students were even aware of Fukishima, which is probably close to the public at large.

But they all know Obama plays too much golf.

Damn liberal media!

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
6. Well, hey
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 01:45 AM
Nov 2013

It is a good thing that radiation is good for you.

But what may become a problem is, with the TPP agreement, Japan may be able to charge us for the nuclear power plant materials that they send us. No free lunch.

flamingdem

(39,303 posts)
10. Yes, as well as the amount of time some of the nuclear elements take
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 08:25 PM
Nov 2013

to disintegrate, umm was that 40 years or 400!!

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
27. The half-life of the elements used at nuke power plants always...
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:59 PM
Nov 2013

a factor for those of who did civil disobedience in the seventies against new nukes.

One contention was like one of our reasons for opposing the Vietnam war, that the concentration of wealth would unbalance society.

With nukes, the half life of some elements until safe outlast any government ever known. To attempt to keep them secure, would require a police state level of protection.

A government controlling such, putting the burden on future generations, was a fraud, a get rich quick scheme that would take away our rights.

Or something to that effect.

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
16. There won't be any plucking. The Rods are damaged and will fragment the moment they are fooled with
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:22 PM
Nov 2013

Not to mention the assemblies the rods sit in are themselves damaged, bent and have been some for a decade at least. That particular cover up will be revealed real soon.

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
18. It's a scam. The entire thing is catch 22. Stop pouring water, and you have to evacuate the
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:29 PM
Nov 2013

entire region, never to return. Keep pouring water (And they are understating the amount contaminated water that is going into the ocean by a factor of 20) and you keep the rods barely cooled until the next earthquake of scale 7. Once the earthquake happens 98% chancew of one in the Fukishima region in 3 years, when it happens, you lose most if not all of Japan and the West coast.

TEPCO is trying to cover it all up because they have nothing else they can do except try to keep themselves from being put infront of a firing squad along with the politicians that let this happen. So they keep coming up with fictional solutions.

The problem is when this finally goes bad, this will be planetary bad.

The contaminated water going inot the Pacific is killing the plankton. No Plankton means no Pacific. No Plankton means no O2. A sterile, poisonous mass of water slowly spreading further and further.

flamingdem

(39,303 posts)
19. What have you heard about the impact on the West Coast?
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:32 PM
Nov 2013

Radiation carried over from a nuclear fire? Or the ocean contamination.

I remember how alarming it was to know that particles were arriving here in 2011 but I've become kind of numb since then.

Maybe it's time to start packing!

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
20. Listen carefully to this.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:34 PM
Nov 2013

Unless you see any sort of effort occur on the scale of Chernobyl. Then you know it's just a scam.


Yes it is time to start packing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017158982

Chenobyl took six hundred thousand troops to stop. Well over a million died. Fukishima makes Chernobyl look like a boyscouts campfie.

flamingdem

(39,303 posts)
21. thanks
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:51 PM
Nov 2013

I did a search on Arnie Gundersen, used to follow him in 2011-12

He's talking about just one aspect of it, have to read up on his other statements
on his website fairewinds


Fairewinds Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen, Coast to Coast AM with John B. Wells, Nov. 9, 2013 (at 31:30 in):

Sources have told me — within Tokyo Electric — that they have no confidence that there’s any boron left between these fuel bundles. And they need boron to prevent the nuclear fuel from becoming a self-sustaining chain reaction, a criticality. So without boron in the plates — there are plates between these fuel bundles — but they got extraordinarily hot from not being cooled off the better part of a couple weeks, and they also were exposed to salt water. So that combination likely stripped out the boron. So the only thing Tokyo Electric can do is throw all sorts of boron into the water. Then pull the fuel. […]

I ran a division that built fuel racks, and these high density fuel racks like they have a Fuksuhima are very close to going critical anyway. […] Normally its .95, as high as .99, that means there’s a 1% margin before a self-sustaining chain reaction can occur. The problem there is that the fuel pool doesn’t have the ability to remove the heat if these nuclear fuel bundles turn back.— a criticality means they turn back on outside of the nuclear reactor. So they have to be extraordinarily careful that they don’t start a chain reaction in the fuel pool […] If they get close together you can cause a chain reaction, and what will happen then is the water will begin to boil violently. Hopefully Tokyo Electric is going to be monitoring this really closely and the first indication of water bubbling, they push the rods back in. The problem though is that the rack is distorted and as you pull it, you’re pulling way more friction than it was designed to handle. It’s a real problem.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
31. "Fukishima makes Chernobyl look like a boyscouts campfie." - Patently absurd.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:16 PM
Nov 2013

The amount of radiation released by the Chernobyl explosion is many times greater than was released at Fukushima.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
36. What's up with the snickering? What exactly is so funny?
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:27 PM
Nov 2013

I think a lot of people are getting off to this by turning it into a sort of pornography of the apocalypse all the while making end-time claims that are not based in reality.

For instance, your claim that a million people have died because of Chernobyl is so utterly ridiculous, I have a hard time believing you sincerely believe it to be true. Even Greenpeace pegs the possible number of deaths at less than 100,000. The true answer is likely somewhere between the UN claimed 4,000 and the GP claimed 93,000.


http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
73. Whatever you say. I'm not bothering to convince you, it's important to you that Fukishima's isnt a
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 07:23 AM
Nov 2013

Planetary event.

Course your saying my comparison of Chernobyl being a boyscouts campfire next to Fukishima being "patently absurd" shows you've no idea what your talking about anyway.





NEW YORK, New York, April 26, 2010 (ENS) - Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.
The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus.

The authors examined more than 5,000 published articles and studies, most written in Slavic languages and never before available in English.

The authors said, "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

"No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe," they said. "Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere."

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
30. It won't matter if they do fragment. They will be safely under water.
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:06 PM
Nov 2013

The fuel assemblies will not be lifted into the air naked to the environment. They will be lifted inside the pool and placed in casks, never being exposed to the open air.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
75. As someone who was (and still is) 100 miles south of Ground Zero
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 07:34 AM
Nov 2013

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 08:13 AM - Edit history (2)

all I can say right now is, the local background radiation readings increased by a factor of 10 here (by a factor of 5 in Tokyo, 35 miles to the south) right after the explosions, but gradually decreased over the next several months. The background radiation readings were taken by a variety of organizations, such as the local university and research institutes.

There were a few 'hotspots" between my city and Tokyo for a while, where the radiation readings were much higher than in my city, but that was explained by the rainfall that those areas received right after the explosions, while my city did not get any rain. And due to public pressure, soil in schoolyards in those hotspots that showed radiation readings of at least 10X normal was removed.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
76. EVERYONE who is concerned about or discussing this disaster
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 10:26 AM
Nov 2013

should watch this documentary on Chernobyl.

Since we're not seeing anywhere NEAR the level of intervention warranted by this catastrophe, I think it's safe to say that TEPCO, the Japanese government, the US nuclear sycophants, and all manner of ostrich-like individuals are dissembling about the efforts needed to mitigate this disaster. I find it rather distressing that some members of this forum condescendingly mock those of us who are following the meager news releases about Fukushima. One DUer asserted that nuclear energy hasn't killed anyone, but rather has saved lives! I wonder how the hundreds of thousands of Chernobyl victims would have felt about our ignorance?

flamingdem

(39,303 posts)
77. There's a contingent who only appear to discuss the nuclear issue
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 10:32 AM
Nov 2013

and some others who feel they have a better scientific grasp of things.

Admittedly there are many posts that are hyperbolic but there are more that are factual.

We cannot get around the fact that the oceans will be severely damaged at a minimum.

I stopped eating Sockeye salmon back in 2011 and will add new species accordingly. Many fish go near Japanese waters and we know that the food chain is going to be impacted.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
79. The fuel rod removal is dangerous, to be sure.
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 11:41 AM
Nov 2013

However, leaving those rods in place is even more dangerous. Another major earthquake could make their removal impossible, creating an even worse situation. The situation is bad enough already. So, they're going to attempt to remove the fuel rod assemblies. We should all hope that they are successful with this, and that it happens before the inevitable next major earthquake.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»TEPCO’s Risky Operation a...