Japan: 9.0 Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Reactor Developments #3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Know?

Former Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
11,851
Reaction score
43
Elite Japan nuclear workers race to stop meltdown

FUKUSHIMA, Japan – They risk explosions, fire and an invisible enemy — radiation that could kill quickly or decades later — as they race to avert disaster inside a dark, overheated nuclear plant.

The 180 emergency workers at Japan's crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi complex are emerging as public heroes in the wake of a disaster spawned by an earthquake and a tsunami.

Dubbed by some as modern-day samurai, the technicians were ordered back to work late Wednesday after a surge of radiation forced them to leave their posts for hours.

"I don't know any other way to say it, but this is like suicide fighters in a war," said Keiichi Nakagawa, associate professor of the Department of Radiology at the University of Tokyo Hospital.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/16/elite-japan-nuclear-workers-race-stop-meltdown-739745804/



THREAD #2


THREAD #1
 
There are no more than 3 units in one location in the US and they are not in danger of tsunami.

you don't think the one in San Onofre could be hit by a Tsunami? The ocean and the plant arethisclose to each other, it is set just like the one in Japan
 
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a significantly bleaker appraisal of the threat posed by Japan’s nuclear crisis than the Japanese government, saying on Wednesday that the damage at one crippled reactor was much more serious than Japanese officials had acknowledged and advising to Americans to evacuate a wider area around the plant than the perimeter established by Japan.

and

The Japanese authorities have never been as specific as Mr. Jascko was in his testimony about the situation at reactor No. 4, where they have been battling fires for more than 24 hours. It is possible the authorities there disagree with Mr. Jascko’s conclusion about the exposure of the spent fuel, or that they have chosen not to discuss the matter for fear of panicking people.

Experts say workers at the plant probably could not approach a fuel pool that was dry, because radiation levels would be so high. In a normally operating pool, the water provides not only cooling but also shields workers from gamma radiation. A plan to dump water into the pool, and others like it, from helicopters was suspended because the crews would be flying right into a radioactive plume.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/asia/17nuclear.html?_r=1&hp

Much more worth reading at link...
 
Yes, we know that. (bold) My beef is with the US peeps saying "we're safe for any contingency". It's their blase' attitude that's disturbing. My point is Japan thought they were safe against "any contingency", too. No one is ever completely safe against unforeseen odds.

I know what you are saying, and they are being quite brash. "We are safe. We have played out many possible scenarios. We know the we can withstand hurricanes and tornados and widespread flooding. We can withstand an earthquake." would have been better.

"Our seawalls are X feet tall. We don't forsee a 300 ft wall of water whacking into the plants, thus we have not played with that contingency."

The seawall at this plant was 11 ft. The wave that took it out was much larger than that.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be snarky. I just can not see the point of condemning all nuclear power because of this incident. Why did they allow 6 reactors at one spot, and 4 more less than 10 miles away? I don't have those answers.
 
Scary question. If one reactor explodes, would they all explode?
 
you don't think the one in San Onofre could be hit by a Tsunami? The ocean and the plant arethisclose to each other, it is set just like the one in Japan

Wonder if they ever had the mock scenario of 6 or more reactors going bad at once, all in one location? (In a location where a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami just ripped the hello outta the infrastructure?)

j.r.k.,

The response you quoted was in relation to a 9.0 earthquake, tsunami and 6 reactors scenario.

San Onofre is 2 of 4 reactors along the entire west coast.
 
j.r.k.,

The response you quoted was in relation to a 9.0 earthquake, tsunami and 6 reactors scenario.

San Onofre is 2 of 4 reactors along the entire west coast.

OK, but I'm not concerned about how many reactors there are, what I'm concerned about a similair scenario (EQ, Tsunami) I understand none of our (U.S.) plants have as many reactors so it could never be as dire BUT COULD the same thing happen here?
 
all we have is the guardian now

8.21pm: More on the comments on the Fukushima nuclear plant by Greg Jaczko, chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to a congressional committee in Washington:

We believe at this point that Unit 4 may have lost a significant inventory, if not lost all, of its water.... There is no water in the spent fuel pool and we believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures.

Jaczko also said there was the possibility of a leak in the spent fuel pool in reactor No 3, "which could lead to a loss of water in that pool", as well as a falling water level in the spent fuel level at the No 2 reactor.

According to Reuters, Jaczko said radiation levels around the site could give emergency workers "lethal doses" of radiation, forcing them to stay away:

"We believe that around the reactor site there are high levels of radiation," Jaczko said. "It would be very difficult for emergency workers to get near the reactors. The doses they could experience would potentially be lethal doses in a very short period of time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/16/japan-nuclear-crisis-tsunami-aftermath-live
 
OK, but I'm not concerned about how many reactors there are, what I'm concerned about a similair scenario (EQ, Tsunami) I understand none of our (U.S.) plants have as many reactors so it could never be as dire BUT COULD the same thing happen here?

Please, please, please remember I have NO qualifications to answer this question. It depends on the height of the seawall at the plant and the location of the back-up generators and back-up batteries. Hopefully they are in a better location than directly behind the seawall at sea level...
 
2110: Stuart Blackburn from Osaka writes: "Today, I and other Britons were contacted by the foreign office, and asked to refer to a report from the government's Chief Science Officer for advice. His conclusion was plain; even if the reactors meltdown, we would be in no danger. There is no reason to leave. For me, this was the clear, expert opinion I had been waiting for. I shall not leave Japan. I began to spread the word to friends. Until, that is, I read an article from the New York Times. The reactor blasts have exposed storage pools of spent fuel to the outside. With the cooling systems down, the water covering the fuel is boiling away, and engineers are unable to conduct repairs. Should the water evaporate away, the spent rods could ignite, sending huge volumes of radioisotopes into the air. 100 rapid deaths within 500 miles. Over 100,000 deaths over time. Of course, this is a worse-case scenario. But the once quenched debate is re-ignited. Should we stay? For now, we can only wait, and talk." Have Your Say

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
 
Is anyone finding ANY up to date news coming from over there, or from here either as to the actual situation?
 
Is anyone finding ANY up to date news coming from over there, or from here either as to the actual situation?

Nope, I'm not..it says breaking news but from when?:banghead::banghead:
 
Yeah.......right, OK. lol.


2046: Japan's foreign ministry has asked foreign diplomats and government officials to remain calm and "accurately convey information provided by Japanese authorities concerning the plant", according to NHK television.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

But the Japanese authorities are getting their info from "The Company". :banghead:

Typing "The Company" makes me feel like I'm talking about the show "24" or something.
 
I understand we will have to agree to disagree on nuclear power. Please forgive me as I had one of those "need to defend my stance" times. I didn't mean to offend anyone who disagrees with me and if I did I am truly sorry.

I watch in horror what is happening in Japan, just as all of you do and hope nothing like this happens here. I keep hoping for a saving grace, knowing all too well that it's too far gone.

If those SNF pools are empty or low there's no one able to go in there to do anything.

This is all MOO, IMO, JMO...
 
The Dow Jones industrial average ended the day's trading session 242 points lower amid concerns over the US economy and the disaster in Japan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
885
Total visitors
996

Forum statistics

Threads
589,800
Messages
17,926,148
Members
227,972
Latest member
pinkfloyd44!
Back
Top