Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 14, 2011
Panic Fukushima Number 4 Reactor on Fire; Radiation Levels Now Dangerous
Posted by Goldy on Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM
Kyodo News and NHK World are both reporting that Fukushima reactor number 4 is on fire. But ignore the category tag, and like Golob said, don't panic; there's no chance of a core meltdown in this reactor, because it was shut down and had no fuel at the time of the earthquake and tsunami.
So how'd it catch on fire? Well, the speculation is that spent fuel stored within the reactor container may have lost coolant, causing a hydrogen explosion, so you know what...? Maybe you should panic a little after all.
No, strike that, as Golob and others have pointed out, there's no chance of this being a Chernobyl-type disaster due to the design of the reactor, so it's not like we should be getting a radioactive cloud heading toward Seattle. Then again, if you're anywhere within 30 kilometers of Fukushima, panic, because the Japanese government is now reporting radiation being detected there at "dangerous levels" of 400 mili sievert and rising.
3
From the NYT:
"If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material — by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago. "
"If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material — by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago. "
4
Honestly, I think you can stop writing these posts from an angle of "If you're near the reactors, get away! Get away!" I'm guessing not many people in the Fukushima area read slog, fewer read it for updates on the local reactor, and those who do are probably no longer in the area.
6
Note: All those apologists who were on yesterday? Well, for any popular national or regional blog right now, one must assume that any sustained defense of a large industry or corporation is being carried out by trained PR personnel - trying to use just enough of the voice of an average participant in that blog, but having a particular point to hammer.
8
It's just fire. Man has used fire for tens of thousands of years. Without fire, civilization wouldn't exist. Just a routine nuclear plant fire. The only real reason for concern in a nuclear plant fire is if you forgot to bring marshmallows.
9
A couple corrections. Reactor 4 did not (as far as we now know) catch fire. What caught fire is the building that houses reactor 4.
Kyodo News is reporting that the fire has apparently been put out. Hopefully this is true. Keep in mind that there was a nearby hydrogen-filled building just exploded, and it's entirely possible that this fire was caused by flaming debris falling on the building that houses reactor 4.
(Very Bad) Things are happening very quickly, and it's difficult to keep track all the technical aspects of this disaster. It doesn't help our understanding when a post seems to conflate a core meltdown with a fire caused by spent fuel rods.
The situation is awful enough as it is without people panicking. I realize that this post is intentionally editorialized, but I don't think it's productive or helpful to encourage panic. Righteous anger, fine. But if you think that nuke plants are a bad idea, promoting panic allows your opponents to accuse you of ... well, panicking, and therefore not behaving or thinking rationally.
Furthermore, if it turns out that the radiation increase was caused by some event that took place during the fire itself, like ceiling beams falling into the pool and sloshing water out, anti-nuke people would want to make this clear as soon as it is confirmed. (I want to emphasize that this idea is entirely hypothetical, and I have not seen it suggested elsewhere.) If it turns out that any old fire is enough to release harmful radiation, it is counterproductive to prematurely suggest that the release was due to a nearby explosion compromising the holding tank. That understates the actual risk, and undermines the case against nuclear power.
To sum up: This kind of rhetoric does not help move the nuclear debate in the right direction, nor does it help readers best understand what is happening at Fukushima.
I apologize if I sound like a bitter dick.
More...
Kyodo News is reporting that the fire has apparently been put out. Hopefully this is true. Keep in mind that there was a nearby hydrogen-filled building just exploded, and it's entirely possible that this fire was caused by flaming debris falling on the building that houses reactor 4.
(Very Bad) Things are happening very quickly, and it's difficult to keep track all the technical aspects of this disaster. It doesn't help our understanding when a post seems to conflate a core meltdown with a fire caused by spent fuel rods.
The situation is awful enough as it is without people panicking. I realize that this post is intentionally editorialized, but I don't think it's productive or helpful to encourage panic. Righteous anger, fine. But if you think that nuke plants are a bad idea, promoting panic allows your opponents to accuse you of ... well, panicking, and therefore not behaving or thinking rationally.
Furthermore, if it turns out that the radiation increase was caused by some event that took place during the fire itself, like ceiling beams falling into the pool and sloshing water out, anti-nuke people would want to make this clear as soon as it is confirmed. (I want to emphasize that this idea is entirely hypothetical, and I have not seen it suggested elsewhere.) If it turns out that any old fire is enough to release harmful radiation, it is counterproductive to prematurely suggest that the release was due to a nearby explosion compromising the holding tank. That understates the actual risk, and undermines the case against nuclear power.
To sum up: This kind of rhetoric does not help move the nuclear debate in the right direction, nor does it help readers best understand what is happening at Fukushima.
I apologize if I sound like a bitter dick.
10
Goldy, you're missing some important things. If your info sources aren't including the essential component of time when stating that radiation levels are at "400 millisieverts," it's better if you don't quote them. Most likely, based on recent Japanese government and TEPCO statements, they mean "400 millisieverts PER HOUR," which is indeed a worrisome level but also probably the level measured within the grounds of the plant. 30 kilometers away, or even 1 km away, the rate will be much lower. Radiation intensity decreases as the inverse square of the distance (twice as far means one-fourth the intensity).
Some dosage information from the Wikipedia entry on sievert (abbreviated Sv):
Some dosage information from the Wikipedia entry on sievert (abbreviated Sv):
For acute (that is, received in a relatively short time, up to about one hour) full body equivalent dose, 1 Sv causes nausea, 2-5 Sv causes epilation or hair loss, hemorrhage and will cause death in many cases. More than 3 Sv will lead to LD 50/30 or death in 50% of cases within 30 days, and over 6 Sv survival is unlikely.One sievert is a thousand millisieverts. If you're standing inside the boundary fence where a 400 millisieverts/hr level is being measured, you will absorb enough radiation in 2.5 hours to make you puke, on average. It only gets worse from there.
11
Just chiming in to thank you for your hardworking comments over the last couple days, rob! Very much appreciated.
13
Just chiming in to let you know that your not helping anything, and that I thinks it's clear that if you were to give regular updates on your bowel movements it would serve the slog community much better. Consider: 1. You would have less difficulty accurately conveying the facts in two flippant paragraphs and 2. If you happened to say, grossly exaggerate or misconstrue the severity of your shits and a bunch of halfwits still took you seriously it wouldn't matter.
Sucks too, because up until now I've respected your integrity in relation to local political journalism. Now how can I be sure your every post isn't as uneducated and slap-dash.
Sucks too, because up until now I've respected your integrity in relation to local political journalism. Now how can I be sure your every post isn't as uneducated and slap-dash.
15
Thanks, gus. There have been a lot of really fine comments from many folks, and I would include the intricately constructed sarcastic ones and the dark-humor ones; they take a little of the edge off. I can't seem to look away from this--drawn in by the eerie blue light.
16
Cecil @13,
Honestly, I've no idea what's got everybody's panties in a knot. I'm not making shit up. I'm repeating what's being reported from the BBC, Kyodo, NHK, and the NY Times.
Personally, I think the second largest nuclear accident in history, after Chernobyl, is big news. But are you suggesting that I shouldn't be reporting the facts, because they give the wrong impression?
Honestly, I've no idea what's got everybody's panties in a knot. I'm not making shit up. I'm repeating what's being reported from the BBC, Kyodo, NHK, and the NY Times.
Personally, I think the second largest nuclear accident in history, after Chernobyl, is big news. But are you suggesting that I shouldn't be reporting the facts, because they give the wrong impression?
17
I'm 400 miles away from Fukushima. I have friends and loved ones who are much closer. Yesterday, I saw the post titled "Reactor Explodes at Japanese Nuclear Power Station" and had a brief moment of panic before I figured out that no, the reactor itself did not explode, Goldy was talking about the hydrogen explosion in the building housing the reactor. Since then I've decided to disbelieve anything I read on Slog about the nuclear situation unless I see it confirmed on NHK. Slog's coverage is too anxiety-ridden for me. I've got enough to be anxious about.
18
China syndrome:
"A catastrophic meltdown of a nuclear reactor. Also called a loss of coolant accident, the scenario begins when something causes the coolant level in a reactor vessel to drop, uncovering part—or all—of the fuel rod assemblies. Even if the nuclear chain reaction has been stopped through use of control rods or other devices, the fuel continues to produce significant residual heat for some time. If not properly cooled, the fuel assemblies will soften and melt, falling to the bottom of the reactor vessel. There, without neutron-absorbing control rods to prevent it, nuclear fission could resume but, in the absence of a neutron moderator, might not. Regardless, the temperature of the molten fuel resting on the steel floor of the reactor would increase to the point where it melts through the container and enters the ground underneath. Although many feel the radioactive slag would stop at the subterranean aquifer, such a series of events would release tremendous amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere and groundwater and cause widespread damage to the environment and plant and animal life."
"A catastrophic meltdown of a nuclear reactor. Also called a loss of coolant accident, the scenario begins when something causes the coolant level in a reactor vessel to drop, uncovering part—or all—of the fuel rod assemblies. Even if the nuclear chain reaction has been stopped through use of control rods or other devices, the fuel continues to produce significant residual heat for some time. If not properly cooled, the fuel assemblies will soften and melt, falling to the bottom of the reactor vessel. There, without neutron-absorbing control rods to prevent it, nuclear fission could resume but, in the absence of a neutron moderator, might not. Regardless, the temperature of the molten fuel resting on the steel floor of the reactor would increase to the point where it melts through the container and enters the ground underneath. Although many feel the radioactive slag would stop at the subterranean aquifer, such a series of events would release tremendous amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere and groundwater and cause widespread damage to the environment and plant and animal life."
19
The problem is not reporting facts. The problem is not being seriously concerned about what is happening. The problem is not getting worried about the possibly awful outcome and lasting effects of this disaster.
The problem is that whenever nuclear anything is discussed people go crazy batshit nuts. Nuclear power is already a polarizing issue. People have a picture of the absolutely terrible and lasting effects of the Chernobyl accident in their head and assume the worst. Headlines like "Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise" draws images of radioactive wastelands and generations of problems caused by prolonged and widespread exposure to radioisotopes.
People associate atomic anything with nukes, mushroom clouds, awful experiments, death, destruction and the end of the world. Explanations of exposure to radiation are made difficult by the complexity of radioactivity and its effects on the human body and the inability of anyone to use consistent goddamned units. Radiation is weird and the effects of serious radiation exposure are also disturbing on a visceral level.
Add in the usual human tendency towards poor risk assessment, a little bit of sensationalism (not everybody is, I know) and old arguments about nuclear power and pretty soon everybody's pissed at everyone else. People trying to explain how the containment systems work and why this isn't Chernobyl think that the people freaking out are overreacting. People understandably worried about this serious disaster think the other folks aren't worried enough and also nukes.
So now the situation in these articles or comment threads (and probably everywhere else) is that you're either freaking the hell out or you're a pro-nuke apologist. This is wrong. It's good to keep posting updates about the situation, it's very serious and should be reported as accurately and factually as possible, emotional commentary notwithstanding.
Just try not to get upset at people who try to provide a more thorough explanation of exactly what is happening. Being told not to panic is not the equivalent of "it's no big deal," it's not being a pro-nuke apologist, it's not assuming support of nuclear power, it's not trying to downplay the situation. It's encouraging people to keep a level head, even in a drastically serious situation without immediately picturing mushroom clouds, Chernobyl and that one episode of the black and white superman where superman is exposed to a nuclear reactor and becomes radioactive and then kills any living thing that comes near him.
I know there are overly-confident nuclear power advocates downplaying the situation, I mediated a conversation between one and somebody talking about Chernobyl and the tendency of some scientists to be overly arrogant. Both of them were scientists.
Please don't yell at me now.
More...
The problem is that whenever nuclear anything is discussed people go crazy batshit nuts. Nuclear power is already a polarizing issue. People have a picture of the absolutely terrible and lasting effects of the Chernobyl accident in their head and assume the worst. Headlines like "Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise" draws images of radioactive wastelands and generations of problems caused by prolonged and widespread exposure to radioisotopes.
People associate atomic anything with nukes, mushroom clouds, awful experiments, death, destruction and the end of the world. Explanations of exposure to radiation are made difficult by the complexity of radioactivity and its effects on the human body and the inability of anyone to use consistent goddamned units. Radiation is weird and the effects of serious radiation exposure are also disturbing on a visceral level.
Add in the usual human tendency towards poor risk assessment, a little bit of sensationalism (not everybody is, I know) and old arguments about nuclear power and pretty soon everybody's pissed at everyone else. People trying to explain how the containment systems work and why this isn't Chernobyl think that the people freaking out are overreacting. People understandably worried about this serious disaster think the other folks aren't worried enough and also nukes.
So now the situation in these articles or comment threads (and probably everywhere else) is that you're either freaking the hell out or you're a pro-nuke apologist. This is wrong. It's good to keep posting updates about the situation, it's very serious and should be reported as accurately and factually as possible, emotional commentary notwithstanding.
Just try not to get upset at people who try to provide a more thorough explanation of exactly what is happening. Being told not to panic is not the equivalent of "it's no big deal," it's not being a pro-nuke apologist, it's not assuming support of nuclear power, it's not trying to downplay the situation. It's encouraging people to keep a level head, even in a drastically serious situation without immediately picturing mushroom clouds, Chernobyl and that one episode of the black and white superman where superman is exposed to a nuclear reactor and becomes radioactive and then kills any living thing that comes near him.
I know there are overly-confident nuclear power advocates downplaying the situation, I mediated a conversation between one and somebody talking about Chernobyl and the tendency of some scientists to be overly arrogant. Both of them were scientists.
Please don't yell at me now.
20
@16, you may just think you're passing on what's in those other news reports, but
(a) You clearly don't understand the important technical details behind what you're passing along. (For example, saying "400 milliseiverts" is meaningless unless you specify over what time period it is, and a headline like "a reactor has exploded" means something much worse than "a building at a nuclear plant has exploded");
(b) Most of the people writing those other news reports don't understand the technical stuff either and are making the same kinds of mistakes;
(c) For lots of reasons (including (a) and (b)), there is a pantload of inaccurate reporting going on;
(d) You're not helping.
(a) You clearly don't understand the important technical details behind what you're passing along. (For example, saying "400 milliseiverts" is meaningless unless you specify over what time period it is, and a headline like "a reactor has exploded" means something much worse than "a building at a nuclear plant has exploded");
(b) Most of the people writing those other news reports don't understand the technical stuff either and are making the same kinds of mistakes;
(c) For lots of reasons (including (a) and (b)), there is a pantload of inaccurate reporting going on;
(d) You're not helping.
22
Oh, ridia, that must have sucked - Slog deals very sternly with people who wander over here mistaking it for much of a hard news source in times of trouble. More of an outrageotainment vibe, usually. Glad you're safe, and very much hope you and your loved ones nearer Fukushima stay not just safe, but sane.
23
I'm firmly with Goldy on this one.
For the last several days, a handful of you have been dissing any and all fears you could find of any kind of danger.
"Everything is working."
"Everything is under control."
"All the backup systems will ensure that everything will be fine."
"This is designed for."
"No serious problems will occur."
"There are layers of redundancy."
"There are backup pumps."
"There are backup generators"
"There are backup batteries"
"There could never be a meltdown."
"The reaction is dead."
"Everything will just cool off and nothing will happen."
"There's containment, nothing will EVER escape."
And day after day, hour after hour, the news has gotten consistently worse. And one after another of these predictions have ALL been proven wrong.
Goldy may not know the first thing about what's going on, but there is significant chance here of a CATASTROPHIC release of radioactive material.
This is the most significant and complicated challenge that any nuclear industry has EVER faced, ALL AT ONCE. And they are COMPLETELY beyond any predicted or planned methodologies or contingencies. They're trying to use FIRE TRUCKS just to get water into the black holes of mystery.
If this were happening in Tacoma or Olympia or hell even Portland right now, I'd have a full tank of gas, canned food, bottled water, and a shotgun loaded in my car and I'd be driving east as fast and far as I could go.
Because the list of "things that could NEVER happen" that have ALL happened over the last several days is pretty fucking long at this point.
For the last several days, a handful of you have been dissing any and all fears you could find of any kind of danger.
"Everything is working."
"Everything is under control."
"All the backup systems will ensure that everything will be fine."
"This is designed for."
"No serious problems will occur."
"There are layers of redundancy."
"There are backup pumps."
"There are backup generators"
"There are backup batteries"
"There could never be a meltdown."
"The reaction is dead."
"Everything will just cool off and nothing will happen."
"There's containment, nothing will EVER escape."
And day after day, hour after hour, the news has gotten consistently worse. And one after another of these predictions have ALL been proven wrong.
Goldy may not know the first thing about what's going on, but there is significant chance here of a CATASTROPHIC release of radioactive material.
This is the most significant and complicated challenge that any nuclear industry has EVER faced, ALL AT ONCE. And they are COMPLETELY beyond any predicted or planned methodologies or contingencies. They're trying to use FIRE TRUCKS just to get water into the black holes of mystery.
If this were happening in Tacoma or Olympia or hell even Portland right now, I'd have a full tank of gas, canned food, bottled water, and a shotgun loaded in my car and I'd be driving east as fast and far as I could go.
Because the list of "things that could NEVER happen" that have ALL happened over the last several days is pretty fucking long at this point.
24
@20 Dose readings can probably always be assumed per hour. Goldy's reporting has actually substantially improved over the last few posts.
This is a bad situation, one that I'm surprised it has gotten to. I'm surprised that they allowed water levels to drop, which would cause core damage, and surprised they could have an explosion in primary containment. They really are having a lot of trouble locking this down - more than I thought they could.
This is a bad situation, one that I'm surprised it has gotten to. I'm surprised that they allowed water levels to drop, which would cause core damage, and surprised they could have an explosion in primary containment. They really are having a lot of trouble locking this down - more than I thought they could.
26
@24 It's a bad situation, but as others have pointed out it will *still* likely not be devastating outside of the evacuation zones. It just doesn't follow our expectations because it's been an ongoing disaster.
I can see what's infuriating to those who see the media going "ZOMG! FIRE AT NUCLEAR PLANT!" without qualifying it--or that the raise in radiation was likely associated with the fire. They've done this incessantly without putting the focus on the real crisis of heating, food, water, dead lying around.
OTOH, I also see why it's infuriating for people to completely trivialize the nuclear incident or claim that "it's just an x-ray" or just a CT. Tell it to those in the Southwest or the Navajo in particular. They've heard similar before.
I can see what's infuriating to those who see the media going "ZOMG! FIRE AT NUCLEAR PLANT!" without qualifying it--or that the raise in radiation was likely associated with the fire. They've done this incessantly without putting the focus on the real crisis of heating, food, water, dead lying around.
OTOH, I also see why it's infuriating for people to completely trivialize the nuclear incident or claim that "it's just an x-ray" or just a CT. Tell it to those in the Southwest or the Navajo in particular. They've heard similar before.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS