Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 15, 2011
Panic / Life / Enviro Far Be It from Me to Use an Alarmist Headline, but Nuclear Fuel Rods Are MELTING THE FUCK DOWN!
Posted by Goldy on Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:45 PM
- Those alarmist bloggers at the BBC are just trying to scare you
I like to think of myself as a bit of a technologist, in that I believe in the ability of science and technology to make our lives better and more fulfilling. Indeed, even given the devastating environmental havoc industrialization is wreaking on the global environment, I'd still argue that the technological innovations of the past century or so have proven a huge net positive, at least for us human beings.
For example, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live without such technologies as penicillin, birth control, vaccines, central heating, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, and electric lighting, just to name a few of the basic amenities of modern life, not to mention the perhaps less essential Internet and other media technologies that enrich our lives daily. Hell, even something as seemingly mundane as a fresh cup of coffee is a bit of a technological and economic marvel, if you stop to think about it. And most of these technologies that make our lives easier, more comfortable, more gratifying and longer, rely on electricity or some other power source to create and/or run them.
Which is why—and those of you who have followed my posts on Japan's looming post-tsunami nuclear disaster might be surprised to learn it—I am not opposed to developing nuclear power... in theory. The newer reactor designs are inherently safer then the 40-plus-year-old technology that is failing in Japan, and there is no doubt that compared to the toxic and carbon emissions of coal—which fuels 50 percent of US electrical generation—nuclear power carries with it a much smaller environmental footprint. Thus, as someone with a profound appreciation for the immense gift of technology and the nearly limitless genius of the human imagination from which it springs, I welcome the possibility of safe and affordable nuclear power.
BUT...
Nuclear fuel rods are fucking MELTING DOWN in not one, not two, but in three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station! Three reactor containment buildings were damaged by explosions there, and a fourth by fire, while radiation levels have soared to life-threatening levels, prompting fears of a substantial leak of radioactive materials. Meanwhile, three other reactors at a second nuclear facility have experienced less catastrophic cooling system failures, while elevated radiation levels have been detected at a third.
No, this is not a Chernobyl style disaster, nor is it likely to rise to that level, but it is a serious radiological crisis nonetheless. But more significantly, this is not some sub-par Soviet reactor design, or a one-off cascade of mechanical failure and human error like at Three Mile Island. These are six reactors suffering the same failures simultaneously, three seriously, due to a foreseeable event. In that context, this was not an "accident" as much as an engineering failure of epic proportions that should give pause to even the most enthusiastic technologists as our nation contemplates building a new generation of nuclear reactors.
Even if the worst has past, the worst is pretty damn bad as it is. Imagine a similar episode here in the US—multiple explosions and fires, plumes of radioactive smoke, a 12-mile evacuation zone, background radiation levels spiking hundreds of miles away—and tell me this wouldn't be the top news story, 24-7, and rightly so. Yet for some reason, a number of commenters in the threads have expressed outrage at my obsessive posting on the subject (which has largely consisted of repeating news flashes from the BBC, Kyodo, NHK, the New York Times and other reputable sources), accusing me of being "alarmist," "sensationalist," and "irresponsible." Some have even gone so far as to question my qualifications as a "journalist," as if posting to Slog has ever provided much of a claim to being one.
Don't get me wrong. It's not like my feelings are hurt or anything. After six years of wading through the cesspool that is the comment thread over on HA, my skin's thicker than the elephant man's. I'm just, well, a bit confused at what's pissing everybody off.
Is it my occasional lack of precision? Pick nits if you want about whether it's a "meltdown" or a "partial meltdown," or whether an explosion of a nuclear reactor's containment building can be reasonably described as a "reactor explosion," but those are the terms that were used when the news flashes first hit the wires. Is it my tone? Maybe. Sorry. I've tried to uncharacteristically tone down the emotion and snark in these posts, though it's difficult, particularly in the headlines, when the news is so relentlessly awful. So think of my tone as a sorta nervous laugh.
But mostly, there appears to be an objection to me covering this story at all. Stick to the local beat, I've been told. Leave the nuclear crisis coverage to somebody who knows how a reactor works, like Golob. Qualify every post with a lengthy explanation of how a boiling water reactor couldn't possibly produce a disaster along the lines of Chernobyl, or don't post at all.
Really?
My defenders in the threads, and there are many (thanks!), have attributed the criticism to pro-nuclear industry trolling, but I suspect it's more complicated than that. I think there are a lot of people like me who have reluctantly and uncomfortably embraced nuclear energy in recent years, but who simply can't bear the thought of rethinking this issue yet again. In fact, the perception seems to be that I am deliberately hyping the events at Fukushima in an effort to challenge those nuclear power supporters. But that couldn't be further from the truth.
If I am hyping the crisis at Fukushima it is because it is news... indeed, history. This is already the second worse nuclear "accident" ever—not Chernobyl, no, but far worse than Three Mile Island—and with total meltdown's of three reactor cores still possible, and even the spent-fuel pools leaking and unstable, the final outcome could still be catastrophic. The US-based Institute for Science and International Security today said that the ongoing crisis is ''now closer to a level 6, and it may unfortunately reach a level 7'' on the International Nuclear and Radiological Events scale that ranks events from 1 to 7, an assessment with which France's Nuclear Safety Authority concurs.
Alarming, yes, but "alarmist"...? Not according to the experts.
It is ironic, and perhaps a giveaway to the true motivations driving the comment threads, that some of the same readers criticizing me for my coverage of Fukushima have praised me for my arguably sensationalist coverage of what I have snarkily dubbed "the War in Wisconsin," a series of posts absolutely dripping with unbridled advocacy. The difference there is that the issue, defined in partisan political terms, is much more black and white. You either support the rights of unions or you don't. And most of the readers here on Slog fall into the former group. But nuclear power, well, that's much more complicated, with environmentalists who once marched against it breaking with dogma to promote new nuclear power plant construction as a necessary option for reducing carbon emissions... a position to which I still adhere, despite all of the above.
Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch, sure, but if our domestic nuclear power industry and its effort to embark on a new round of construction cannot survive a painful conversation about the Fukushima disaster, then it doesn't deserve to. For any industry willing and able to sweep news like this under the rug cannot be trusted to operate safely.
PS: Fukushima Number 4 is on fire again.
1
I think you're right. I don't think all of the nuke defenders are shills, just being incapable of withdrawing their projections of critically flawed reasoning. But, boy are they sensitive! And, well, maybe they should examine that. When there were mentions of problems with the cooling failing on Friday/Saturday, it already started to look more than trivial but those that NEED to believe in technological infallibility have to provide really silly justifications such as the Analogous Safe Low-Dose Threshold Hypothesis of theirs and pile it on with insults about the ignorance of others.
Besides Charles' "We're in downwinder mode" or some other such hysterical comment like that, I don't really see too much fault in repeating what's said elsewhere with you're own commentary. That's the concept of a fucking blog, btw.
Besides Charles' "We're in downwinder mode" or some other such hysterical comment like that, I don't really see too much fault in repeating what's said elsewhere with you're own commentary. That's the concept of a fucking blog, btw.
2
Just post the damn facts. At this point I'm less irritated by the fruitlessly panicky tone than I am how bitter you are about this. It's as if this has become less about reporting anything and more about assuaging your wounded pride. Skip the editorializing and stick to the story.
3
Goldy, you say your hide's thicker than the elephant man's, but it seems like you're letting the commenter fly-bites bug you. I say post more...give 'em tons of dung to swirl around.
4
@3,
I enjoy engaging with commenters from time to time, and compared to what I'm used to at HA, where the contentious issues inevitably digressed into anti-semitic slurs, attacks on my daughter, and the occasional death threats, the criticism I've received here has been like love letters.
I enjoy engaging with commenters from time to time, and compared to what I'm used to at HA, where the contentious issues inevitably digressed into anti-semitic slurs, attacks on my daughter, and the occasional death threats, the criticism I've received here has been like love letters.
5
41 year old nuclear reactors get hit by an 9.0 earthquake (apparently ~8.2/8.3 at the site), followed by a 20 foot tsunami, followed by explosions in the outer containment building and total cooling system failure.
Despite that, the reactor vessels and inner containment are apparently intact, and radiation levels are decreasing by most reports.
I'd call that a success so far, honestly. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.
Despite that, the reactor vessels and inner containment are apparently intact, and radiation levels are decreasing by most reports.
I'd call that a success so far, honestly. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.
7
I don't question this is a big problem... what I question is the way some are responding to the big problem. It does no one any good at all to write big passionate screeds about how dangerous and deadly this is. In particular because, especially for Seattle, this isn't that dangerous or deadly. Even a full-scale meltdown in all three reactors will not justify much by way of panic in Seattle. There will not be giant clouds of radioactive ash descending upon us and attacking our un-iodized thyroid glands. The physics just isn't there. You're hearing scary words and interpreting scary things into them and then repeating them broadly for other people to do the same with... but "meltdown" doesn't mean what you and so many others apparently still seem to think it means, even in the face of some awesome reporting going on elsewhere about what it actually means.
Really... everything will be OK.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2…
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781887/everything-…
Really... everything will be OK.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2…
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781887/everything-…
9
I think I mostly agree with you. Neither here nor there really, but can you imagine the devastation if Japan were dependent on hydro-electric power? I'd prefer not to.
10
+1 for Zebes @2
"Just post the damn facts. At this point I'm less irritated by the fruitlessly panicky tone than I am how bitter you are about this. It's as if this has become less about reporting anything and more about assuaging your wounded pride. Skip the editorializing and stick to the story."
"Just post the damn facts. At this point I'm less irritated by the fruitlessly panicky tone than I am how bitter you are about this. It's as if this has become less about reporting anything and more about assuaging your wounded pride. Skip the editorializing and stick to the story."
11
I'm with you Goldy. Every day the news gets worse - either by small or large increment - and I'm wondering what the endgame here is. At some point those workers get sick, get tired, go home because they can't take it anymore, and then we've got SIX troubled reactors at one plant, and no more "final option" like pumping in seawater in place....and then what? The non-alarmists seem to believe strongly in miracles. Me, I'm trying to do the math on this in a way that doesn't involve one or more (or SIX) full-blown nuke reactor fires by this weekend.
12
Just as an FYI, Goldy...3 of the reactors were already shut down for inspection at the time so the only ones in any real imminent danger are the other 3. Which is nothing to sneeze at but that is a stroke of luck if there are any in this whole mess.
13
I get what you're saying Goldy, but at the same time, anon@5 makes good sense too. Calling an earthquake larger than any that has hit the island in recorded history, located in perfect tsunami-ing range "forseeable" isn't untrue, but it's certainly stretching the word.
This is a terrible disaster at the plant. It's also a terrible disaster *everywhere else* in Japan.
This is a terrible disaster at the plant. It's also a terrible disaster *everywhere else* in Japan.
14
Oh My God! BOLD ITALICS!!!!!11!!1!1!!!! - EPIC!! - MELTING! - EVER!!!!11!!! - adhere!!!!111!1!111!
16
I'm one of those people who has reluctantly embraced nuclear, as you say. I grew up in the Tri-Cities and our family had to be the only people in our neighborhood who ever expressed doubts of any kind about Hanford. Our neighbor was a chief engineer for Westinghouse, and was totally the kind of guy you want running a nuke plant.
That said, it is impossible to engineer risk down to zero. Build to withstand a 9.0 quake? Ok, what about a large meteor strike? Unlikely, but not impossible. The hard question is what level of risk are we going to accept vs. the cost of designing to meet that risk. Will we measure the chance of a radiological disaster against the guarantee of the pollution that comes with fossil fuels? The jury is out on that one.
That said, it is impossible to engineer risk down to zero. Build to withstand a 9.0 quake? Ok, what about a large meteor strike? Unlikely, but not impossible. The hard question is what level of risk are we going to accept vs. the cost of designing to meet that risk. Will we measure the chance of a radiological disaster against the guarantee of the pollution that comes with fossil fuels? The jury is out on that one.
17
@11
The news has been bad. It will continue to be bad. Bad day after day is kinda like "worse" I guess. It's certainly not getting better yet.
But 10,000+ people were killed in this disaster. If even a handful of people are killed as a direct result of the nuclear power plants, I will be surprised. Saddened, but somewhat surprised.
Perspective is all that the "nuclear apologists" are looking for.
The news has been bad. It will continue to be bad. Bad day after day is kinda like "worse" I guess. It's certainly not getting better yet.
But 10,000+ people were killed in this disaster. If even a handful of people are killed as a direct result of the nuclear power plants, I will be surprised. Saddened, but somewhat surprised.
Perspective is all that the "nuclear apologists" are looking for.
18
Definitely worth getting exited about. If I were some bored Nuke-E looking for something to do (other than pumping out Charbucks), I'd get to work on a truly failsafe cooling mechanism for next-generation reactors, rather than trying to defend the existing industry (which has been asleep since the 50's).
20
I think Goldy's post is right on. @16: you make a good point about society's need to accept a level of risk to maintain its desired standard of living. What drives me nuts is the attempt by some to disguise or ignore those risks, whether due to cognitive dissonance, economic conflict of interest, or just plain ignorance. The risks need to be fully acknowledged so citizens in a free society can make an informed choice on what technologies to support.
21
For those who want some "positive" facts:
The fuel in the reactors can't explode, despite what the media says. You could get a steam explosion (flume of radiation) but that is highly unlikely even if they screw everything up.
If we got a steam explosion, then the fuel would stay put. Chernobyl was a graphite fire, which is what spread most of the radiation. These are light-water reactors, no graphite. So nothing to burn. If the fuel melted, it would ooze to the bottom of the reactor and congeal, not flow.
No containments have been breached. There was a worry about No. 2, but it seems secure. The Japanese are continually flooding the cores with borated sea water, which works to keep things cool.
All that said, this is one horrific clusterfuck disaster. Carry on.
The fuel in the reactors can't explode, despite what the media says. You could get a steam explosion (flume of radiation) but that is highly unlikely even if they screw everything up.
If we got a steam explosion, then the fuel would stay put. Chernobyl was a graphite fire, which is what spread most of the radiation. These are light-water reactors, no graphite. So nothing to burn. If the fuel melted, it would ooze to the bottom of the reactor and congeal, not flow.
No containments have been breached. There was a worry about No. 2, but it seems secure. The Japanese are continually flooding the cores with borated sea water, which works to keep things cool.
All that said, this is one horrific clusterfuck disaster. Carry on.
22
No fewer than 29 first-person references, plus a pundit talking endlessly about his own reporting. I cannot believe that even Goldy would spin Japan's nuclear disaster so that it is about HIM.
No fewer than 29 first-person references, plus a pundit talking endlessly about his own reporting. I cannot believe that even Goldy would spin Japan's nuclear disaster so that it is about HIM.
23
At the moment, I don't give a damn about the relative merits of nuclear power. I'm trying to figure out whether I need to worry about being exposed to radiation, or that my loved ones in northern and eastern Japan will be exposed. Your "occasional lack of precision" makes that harder, and your tone certainly doesn't help.
Thanks for nothing,
Ridia, in Japan
Thanks for nothing,
Ridia, in Japan
24
What @5 said. I believe a 9.0 is 7x stronger an earthquake than their design condition. Should they have designed for zero failure for one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history? Maybe. And maybe they'll start doing that. But that drives up the price of nuclear, and if these reactors fail in a way that they think they'll fail (melting into a carbon bed placed there for that purpose, no massive and deadly isotope release) it's not the end of the world.
All that said, I haven't minded your reporting style. I've been using the Slog as my go-to news source for the details. Partly from your coverage, partly from Golob's coverage, and partly from the great comment threads questioning, researching and debating every claim. That's a functional media, in my mind.
All that said, I haven't minded your reporting style. I've been using the Slog as my go-to news source for the details. Partly from your coverage, partly from Golob's coverage, and partly from the great comment threads questioning, researching and debating every claim. That's a functional media, in my mind.
25
I don't get the impression, newbie that I am, that Slog presents itself as some sort of peer-reviewed journal, it's an interesting set of personal impressions about current events, with each writer putting their particular stamp on it. Keep writing.
26
@17 Oh, I don't know...I'm using "worse" in it's adverb sense of "in less good condition", which I think given the facts is perfectly appropriate.
In the last four days we went from one reactor being "in trouble" (remember those first headlines?) to three reactors having partially melted fuel rods, a fourth in renovation catching fire (again), and two more in danger of the hydrogen explosions that rocked reactors 1, 2, and 3. So yes. The news is bad. It continues to be bad. But I think in a measurable "less good with every passing day" sense most of the rest of humanity can safely use the word "worse" in reference to the situation as time progresses and be right.
In the last four days we went from one reactor being "in trouble" (remember those first headlines?) to three reactors having partially melted fuel rods, a fourth in renovation catching fire (again), and two more in danger of the hydrogen explosions that rocked reactors 1, 2, and 3. So yes. The news is bad. It continues to be bad. But I think in a measurable "less good with every passing day" sense most of the rest of humanity can safely use the word "worse" in reference to the situation as time progresses and be right.
27
@Ridia, actual news sources (to which Goldy links) might help you out better than Slog. Try NHK, BBC, Kyodo, or Reuters. Good luck.
28
Whatever the content, that was really good writing, Goldy. I'm a new fan.
That said, I also support nuclear power as a solution for our energy needs, but am grateful that some of us want to examine the design of these plants to ensure their safety. That is why this is "news".
That said, I also support nuclear power as a solution for our energy needs, but am grateful that some of us want to examine the design of these plants to ensure their safety. That is why this is "news".
29
If we are gonna talk about understanding and accepting the risks of what it takes to power our computers and coffee makers, and I think we should, we have to factor in the risks from human nature as well and mother nature. The susceptibility of humans to be swayed by greed, avarice, fear, shame, delusion and all sorts of non fact/science/technology based factors should be part of the equation. The nuclear power industry (like most huge dollar industry I think) is riddled with forged documents, doctored reports and paid off regulators all perpetrated by people who for one reason or another veered off the narrow edge of best practices based on science and just like we can depend on more grinding tectonic plates and tsunamis we can count on people let us down.
30
The earthquake didn't cause the cooling failure. It was the loss of the diesel generators due to the tsunami. Even if you get a free pass on all earthquakes larger than those in the past -- which is bullshit -- but even if you get that free pass, tsunamis are eminently predictable
Blaming everything on the 9.0 earthquake is exactly what's wrong with the flacks trying to put a happy face on the ineptitude of the nuclear industry. And really, if you're going to build something as dangerous as a nuclear plant, you damn well better be able to estimate the odds of all quakes that might happen during the life of the plant, not merely those quakes recorded in the recent past. If you can't make that estimate, and get it right, then maybe you're disqualified from arguing that the plant you want to build is going to be safe.
None of what we say here will help the Japanese. But it's fun to heap shame and ridicule on nuclear fanboys, and to mock their arrogant cluelessness.
Blaming everything on the 9.0 earthquake is exactly what's wrong with the flacks trying to put a happy face on the ineptitude of the nuclear industry. And really, if you're going to build something as dangerous as a nuclear plant, you damn well better be able to estimate the odds of all quakes that might happen during the life of the plant, not merely those quakes recorded in the recent past. If you can't make that estimate, and get it right, then maybe you're disqualified from arguing that the plant you want to build is going to be safe.
None of what we say here will help the Japanese. But it's fun to heap shame and ridicule on nuclear fanboys, and to mock their arrogant cluelessness.
31
The post after this one explains how to write and wage war on bike lanes. The article it links to, and the template, could be used on how to wage war on people who think nuclear power plants can be unsafe and we should be worried. Same tactics being used by those attacking Goldy.
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0…
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0…
32
Still, where do you put the waste material of these power plants. In a hole in Redmond WA to leak into the Columbia river.
The solution is more solar and wind, not more nuclear.
The solution is more solar and wind, not more nuclear.
33
@27 Yup, I`ve got the BBC in English on one tab and NHK in Japanese on another. I read Slog to distract myself with smut and politics from back home. But when a "Panic!" headline catches my eye, it sends me back into another round of neurotically re-reading the BBC and NHK to see if there was some new, dire development that I missed.
34
One element lacking in all coverage of this disaster is the fact that distance is your friend, and you don't even necessarily need that much.
The highest radiation level at Fukushima I (Dai-ichi) I've seen posted thus far is 400 millisieverts/hr right at the reactor buildings, which is dangerous (a few hours' unprotected exposure will make you sick enough to be hospitalized), but that was for perhaps a few hours while Unit 4's spent-fuel storage area was on fire and Unit 2 had suffered a hydrogen explosion within the containment building, possibly cracking primary containment.
Given that 1 millisievert/year is perhaps a reasonable upper limit for non-natural sources for the general public. Say that 400 millisieverts/hr reading was 100 meters or so from the Unit 2/Unit 4 buildings. The Inverse Square Law says that if you're standing just outside the evacuation zone perimeter of 20 km or 20,000 meters (about 12.5 miles), the rate of exposure at that distance during the 400 mSv/hr event would be 0.001 MICROsieverts/hr. If the high rate of exposure continued and you stood there with your thumb up your ass for a full YEAR (8,760 hours), your total exposure would be 8.76 MICROsieverts, or less than 1% of the reasonable safe limit.
Moreover, 20 km of air and the walls of your house would provide additional shielding. So, without blaming them, people living 20-50 km away from the plant site who are trying like hell to go crash with relatives in Tokyo or beyond out of fear of radiation (as opposed to the general fucked-up-ness of their present surroundings) are over-reacting. I really wish more people understood at least the basics about radiation.
That said, if further fires and/or steam explosions at the plant site loft sooty particulate matter into the atmosphere, then tracking the dispersal pattern becomes important because the problem changes from a point source on the map to dispersed environmental background. It also changes to include things that could enter the food chain and be ingested or inhaled, which represents additional short- and long-term hazards. But it won't be all that concentrated. Monitoring such dispersal, informing the public, and moving them out of high-impact areas while short-half-life radionuclides decay to safe levels is well within the capabilities of public-health and military units in Japan.
More...
The highest radiation level at Fukushima I (Dai-ichi) I've seen posted thus far is 400 millisieverts/hr right at the reactor buildings, which is dangerous (a few hours' unprotected exposure will make you sick enough to be hospitalized), but that was for perhaps a few hours while Unit 4's spent-fuel storage area was on fire and Unit 2 had suffered a hydrogen explosion within the containment building, possibly cracking primary containment.
Given that 1 millisievert/year is perhaps a reasonable upper limit for non-natural sources for the general public. Say that 400 millisieverts/hr reading was 100 meters or so from the Unit 2/Unit 4 buildings. The Inverse Square Law says that if you're standing just outside the evacuation zone perimeter of 20 km or 20,000 meters (about 12.5 miles), the rate of exposure at that distance during the 400 mSv/hr event would be 0.001 MICROsieverts/hr. If the high rate of exposure continued and you stood there with your thumb up your ass for a full YEAR (8,760 hours), your total exposure would be 8.76 MICROsieverts, or less than 1% of the reasonable safe limit.
Moreover, 20 km of air and the walls of your house would provide additional shielding. So, without blaming them, people living 20-50 km away from the plant site who are trying like hell to go crash with relatives in Tokyo or beyond out of fear of radiation (as opposed to the general fucked-up-ness of their present surroundings) are over-reacting. I really wish more people understood at least the basics about radiation.
That said, if further fires and/or steam explosions at the plant site loft sooty particulate matter into the atmosphere, then tracking the dispersal pattern becomes important because the problem changes from a point source on the map to dispersed environmental background. It also changes to include things that could enter the food chain and be ingested or inhaled, which represents additional short- and long-term hazards. But it won't be all that concentrated. Monitoring such dispersal, informing the public, and moving them out of high-impact areas while short-half-life radionuclides decay to safe levels is well within the capabilities of public-health and military units in Japan.
36
If this situation rages out of control like it has been, with absolutely NO indication of slowing down, than it will be Chernobyl multiple times over.
38
21-As the core sinks into the earth pressures build which can produce a "dirty bomb" like explosion with a force equivalent to a small-yield device.
42
Rob, you can wish more people understood the basics about radiation, but I wish you and some others understood the basics of fear. Four dense paragraphs of facts doesn't diminish fear, nor does your patronizing--yea, nasty--tone. There may be things about which you know as little as some of us know about radiation, and you might be fearful of those things. Unless you're not actually human.
43
@26 That's fair. But a lot of the worse there is in information coming out, not in the situation getting all that much worse on the ground. I think. And hope.
As far as I can tell, there is still very little risk of a catastrophic release of radiation, or mass casualties as a result of this. So, when you say worse with each passing day, it felt to me like a slippery-slope claim toward Apocalypse.
I apologize for lumping you in with completely panic-stricken morons like Spindles, however.
As far as I can tell, there is still very little risk of a catastrophic release of radiation, or mass casualties as a result of this. So, when you say worse with each passing day, it felt to me like a slippery-slope claim toward Apocalypse.
I apologize for lumping you in with completely panic-stricken morons like Spindles, however.
44
@38. You're assuming the meltdown can get past the carbon floor that's designed to keep the melted material from sinking into the earth. That's many steps away from where we're at, and would seem to require a whole extra set of failures.
45
@32 Have you ever been to Nevada? I lived there for a little while. Put it in a mountain that no one will ever see ever. You can't take power plants offline with solar and wind power - they fluctuate too much. Ask the dutch who are paying minibar prices for electricity to meet demands.
@Everyone Yes, people have been bitching to Japan about building on fault lines. This was predictable. http://www.cracked.com/article_18396_6-m…
And as I said before, Goldy's reporting has improved. It is a bad situation. But let's get the perspective that this is going to be far less bad than Chernobyl, and far worse than Three mile island, where nothing really happened.
@Everyone Yes, people have been bitching to Japan about building on fault lines. This was predictable. http://www.cracked.com/article_18396_6-m…
And as I said before, Goldy's reporting has improved. It is a bad situation. But let's get the perspective that this is going to be far less bad than Chernobyl, and far worse than Three mile island, where nothing really happened.
46
@17, this "but no one has been killed by the reactor" line is ridiculous. Way to miss the point. You're speaking about today, but humans who have developed emotionally past the age of 16 are capable of understanding future implications of a threat. These radioactive materials have a half-life of thousands of years; that means a reactor after meltdown will be a dead zone. In the middle of an island the size of California and home to tens of millions of people. Chernobyl was in the backwoods of a huge country and people were able to evacuate. What is Japan supposed to do with the poisonous cancer on their coastline that could potentially further sicken and endanger their citizens? Shrug and say "no one's been hurt yet"? STFU already.
47
@43, I don't think anybody here, besides some really paranoid people, thought that this would mean mass casualties. That's an impossibility given the amount of initial energy in these reactors and the fact that they correctly detected the earthquake and initiated shutdown. And it just doesn't make sense...
However, the public health issue presented by the nukes (up to and including more radiogenic cancers and eventual premature deaths) has been getting worse. The probability of loss of containment has been increasing since the beginning of the cooling failures. Not an apocalypse, but not insignificant when combined with all the other crap those poor people have been dealing with recently.
However, the public health issue presented by the nukes (up to and including more radiogenic cancers and eventual premature deaths) has been getting worse. The probability of loss of containment has been increasing since the beginning of the cooling failures. Not an apocalypse, but not insignificant when combined with all the other crap those poor people have been dealing with recently.
48
I think you did a pretty good job reporting what was in the news. The problem is the news can get confusing. I live in Japan (far from the affected areas) and have been watching the news here, and online. Reporters have been giving slightly different stories from each news source, and it seems like a game of "telephone" is being played with the news. It is tough to figure out what is really happening as it happens.
Also I have to pick just one nit. This was by no means a FORESEEABLE EVENT. Those reactors, old as they are, are built to withstand about 7.0 - 7.5 M earthquake, and still be able to function after the emergency shut down procedures are followed. A 9.0 M quake is what, about 100X as powerful? Also, throw in a 25ft. wall of water for good measure to kill any generators or back up electricity.
These kinds of disasters cannot be fully prepared for. The people of Japan know full well earthquakes will come. They are more prepared to deal with them than most other countries. But this is beyond the scope of most disaster preparation.
Also I have to pick just one nit. This was by no means a FORESEEABLE EVENT. Those reactors, old as they are, are built to withstand about 7.0 - 7.5 M earthquake, and still be able to function after the emergency shut down procedures are followed. A 9.0 M quake is what, about 100X as powerful? Also, throw in a 25ft. wall of water for good measure to kill any generators or back up electricity.
These kinds of disasters cannot be fully prepared for. The people of Japan know full well earthquakes will come. They are more prepared to deal with them than most other countries. But this is beyond the scope of most disaster preparation.
49
@30 True, the tsunami knocked out their backup generators. I don't think either of us knows if the large earthquake caused the other problems. And I'm not sure "anyone" could have predicted a tsunami of this size (again, caused by a quake 7x their design value). But they had a backup plan for the generators being knocked out - portable generators brought in to the site. Apparently the problem was the electrical connectors were the wrong type and it took (critical) hours to plug them in correctly, which started the whole mess. If you really want to blame the engineers I'd start there. I would think they'd put in every concievable electrical connectors including jumper cables. And I'm sure every plant on the planet will be going out and doing just that.
50
Just finished watching ABC news with Diane Sawyer (did her eye makeup last the whole 30 minutes this time...not sure)...they had one of these tut-tut go back to your homes pieces about how a banana is radioactive. Yes, they took a Geiger Counter and held it to a banana to show us how "everything" can emit radiation.
People, if the mega-shills are this defensive about it, you know it's someone's ox is getting gored. Gored deep. And we'll be the ones eating Strontium-90 with our Fruity Pebbles.
51
Unreasoning fear of anything is not your friend, @42. tl;dr? The worst circumstances thus far at the nuclear plants would, if they were constant for a year, give no significant risk for people outside the evacuation zone (assuming my math is right, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).
Commenter emma's bee has made some great points this week about real risk to people and why it should not be minimized by governments or anyone else. Current and likely foreseeable conditions in Japan don't yet approach those levels.
I'm not an apologist for the nuclear industry. My preference is for distributed, grid-tied rooftop solar, which we could have done in a very big way: 20-40 million homes in this country for about the cash outlay for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
I'm sorry if I came across as callous. I'm a big puss. If my home had just been washed out from under me and some family members killed like the people in the tsunami zone, in all likelihood I would be sitting on a pile of rubble and sobbing with my head on my knees. I'm not sure I would ever want to get up.
Commenter emma's bee has made some great points this week about real risk to people and why it should not be minimized by governments or anyone else. Current and likely foreseeable conditions in Japan don't yet approach those levels.
I'm not an apologist for the nuclear industry. My preference is for distributed, grid-tied rooftop solar, which we could have done in a very big way: 20-40 million homes in this country for about the cash outlay for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
I'm sorry if I came across as callous. I'm a big puss. If my home had just been washed out from under me and some family members killed like the people in the tsunami zone, in all likelihood I would be sitting on a pile of rubble and sobbing with my head on my knees. I'm not sure I would ever want to get up.
52
Goldy, I was initially annoyed at some of your posts, and I chalk it up to tone (though the "violence" ones kind of rubbed me the wrong way). As you've said/implied several times, though, it's not like posting on Slog is some sort of hallowed ground of journalism. Fair enough. And actually, I've been mostly really happy with what you've posted (esp. the Wisconsin stuff). Anyway, I find it sort of touching that you are responding so heavily to your detractors in the comments, but I really think you don't have to. I'm sure those comments are hard to ignore, but you'll be much happier when you figure out how to do that.
53
@Matt: Ed Lyman at UCS points out that Sandia's predicted probability for loss of primary containment (for the Mark I) in this case is 42%. For the non-engineer: that's not a low failure rate! In any case, it's something to be concerned about.
54
Hah. I think Goldy and I are moving toward each other somewhat (though not meeting exactly). After your first "mushroom cloud" post, your subsequent posts have become less and less sensationalist. And as each new fire/explosion/radiation release occurs, I am finding myself more and more concerned over the whole thing.
I guess what has bothered me is that a lot of the news reporting in general has been alarmist and inaccurate. It has given rise to widespread fears that there could be a nuclear explosion ("mushroom cloud"!) or massive radiation leak. Neither is possible. Even the fear of a meltdown is overblown. With this type of reactor design, even if there is a full on meltdown, the melted fuel would simply fall onto a prepared pad below, and solidify again when it cools sufficiently. That will ruin the reactor, create a cleanup problem, and likely release some radiation, but it will not be catastrophic. Probably no worse than the mess we have to clean up at Hanford. Mind you, that is a pretty big mess. I'm not trying to put a happy face on this mess. I'm merely trying to keep a bit of perspective, and not institute unwarranted panic.
Ironically, I'm actually opposed to nuclear power. All new technology becomes safer with each successive generation and with each accident. That was true of airplanes and it is true of nuclear reactors. So I partly agree with Goldy, in that any new reactors built today will be vastly safer than Chernobyl or the decades-old plants in Japan. But even if we are capable of building perfectly safe plants, we have still never figured out what to do with the nuclear waste and spent fuel rods. The best we've been able to come up with is to bury it in a cave in Nevada for a few millennia until they are no longer radioactive, and hope the shit doesn't leak into anything important. We never had a core meltdown or serious accident at Hanford, but there is nevertheless a huge toxic radioactive mess left behind now that it is mostly decommissioned. That superfund site is now costing us a couple billion dollars a year in cleanup costs, and will continue to for many years to come. I will not be a supporter of nuclear power until we devise a safe and effective way of disposing the nuclear waste we produce in the process.
More...
I guess what has bothered me is that a lot of the news reporting in general has been alarmist and inaccurate. It has given rise to widespread fears that there could be a nuclear explosion ("mushroom cloud"!) or massive radiation leak. Neither is possible. Even the fear of a meltdown is overblown. With this type of reactor design, even if there is a full on meltdown, the melted fuel would simply fall onto a prepared pad below, and solidify again when it cools sufficiently. That will ruin the reactor, create a cleanup problem, and likely release some radiation, but it will not be catastrophic. Probably no worse than the mess we have to clean up at Hanford. Mind you, that is a pretty big mess. I'm not trying to put a happy face on this mess. I'm merely trying to keep a bit of perspective, and not institute unwarranted panic.
Ironically, I'm actually opposed to nuclear power. All new technology becomes safer with each successive generation and with each accident. That was true of airplanes and it is true of nuclear reactors. So I partly agree with Goldy, in that any new reactors built today will be vastly safer than Chernobyl or the decades-old plants in Japan. But even if we are capable of building perfectly safe plants, we have still never figured out what to do with the nuclear waste and spent fuel rods. The best we've been able to come up with is to bury it in a cave in Nevada for a few millennia until they are no longer radioactive, and hope the shit doesn't leak into anything important. We never had a core meltdown or serious accident at Hanford, but there is nevertheless a huge toxic radioactive mess left behind now that it is mostly decommissioned. That superfund site is now costing us a couple billion dollars a year in cleanup costs, and will continue to for many years to come. I will not be a supporter of nuclear power until we devise a safe and effective way of disposing the nuclear waste we produce in the process.
55
@46 This will not and cannot cause a radiological disaster in the same way Chernobyl did. There is no question about that. The reasons why have been explained over and over and over in these threads.
What will the Japanese people do with the destroyed reactor? Repair it if possible, clean up the mess if not.
@47 Absolutely not insignificant, you're right. I just think that history will judge the failures at the nuclear plants to be a "relatively" minor event compared to the destruction wrought by the initial events. Or, rather than think, hope.
But on the whole, I agree with you. And I'd like to add starsandgarters to the list of people I'm sorry for lumping you in with.
What will the Japanese people do with the destroyed reactor? Repair it if possible, clean up the mess if not.
@47 Absolutely not insignificant, you're right. I just think that history will judge the failures at the nuclear plants to be a "relatively" minor event compared to the destruction wrought by the initial events. Or, rather than think, hope.
But on the whole, I agree with you. And I'd like to add starsandgarters to the list of people I'm sorry for lumping you in with.
56
@49
You're still using special pleading to excuse the failures that led up to this. This is how unrealistic faith in complex systems is created: one by one, you look at each individual screwup and you tell yourself it doesn't count.
Having the wrong type of electrical connections is exactly the kind of screwup that people everywhere do all the time. Even smart people -- especially smart people. It's called hubris.
It's only one of dozens of screwups that are par for the course, and you really need to first build a better human before you can claim that humans can operate a system this dangerous and this complex for any length of time. A realist would plan for electrical connectors that don't match, and a thousand other errors just as bad, but we don't engineer anything that well. Too short sighted, too lazy, to greedy, and too arrogant.
If it's true that nobody can predict an earthquake like this, then maybe we ought not to be building nuclear plants until we are good enough at earthquake prediction to properly design for it.
You can't just casually dismiss our inadequate earthquake prediction: it goes to the very heart of why we lack the technology to make this stuff work.
You're still using special pleading to excuse the failures that led up to this. This is how unrealistic faith in complex systems is created: one by one, you look at each individual screwup and you tell yourself it doesn't count.
Having the wrong type of electrical connections is exactly the kind of screwup that people everywhere do all the time. Even smart people -- especially smart people. It's called hubris.
It's only one of dozens of screwups that are par for the course, and you really need to first build a better human before you can claim that humans can operate a system this dangerous and this complex for any length of time. A realist would plan for electrical connectors that don't match, and a thousand other errors just as bad, but we don't engineer anything that well. Too short sighted, too lazy, to greedy, and too arrogant.
If it's true that nobody can predict an earthquake like this, then maybe we ought not to be building nuclear plants until we are good enough at earthquake prediction to properly design for it.
You can't just casually dismiss our inadequate earthquake prediction: it goes to the very heart of why we lack the technology to make this stuff work.
57
It's interesting that people keep comparing this situation to Chernobyl, but no one has mentioned the other historic nuclear "event" that actually occured in Japan. You know, that time back in the 40's when WE nuked two of Japan's major cities?
I wonder how much radiation was "released" back then?
I wonder how much radiation was "released" back then?
58
Alarmist? Over-the-top? Not at all. Everything you've said here Goldy is in accord with what TOP US EXPERTS said yesterday. Read it here: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nucl…
The pro-nuclear fanatics ... such as they are, a very small percentage claiming any qualifications ... are out in force all over the social web trying to downspin.
For days it's been "this can't happen, that can't happen" and "the truth is that ..." and recommending people get their "facts" from NIE ... the nuclear industry's chief lobbyist.
But the real facts about "safe, clean, too cheap to meter" are all coming from Japan. And the reactors were made, long ago but still in use - like the 23 still in use in the United States - by our own General Electric.
At least in Japan the backup batteries lasted 8 hours. Here they only have to last 4 hours.
'A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan said wouldn't happen is in progress,' the [Japanese] Citizens' Nuclear Information Centre said. 'It is occurring as a result of an earthquake that they said would not happen.' http://www.blogger.com/www.guardian.co.u…
But for blind luck, we'd have already have been through this. 23 of them are out there waiting for their chance, and "our" experts are not offering any advice about what "their" experts could be doing better. Because (like here), the lobbyists and politicians have relegated the people's safety to a low priority, for a long, long time.
More...
The pro-nuclear fanatics ... such as they are, a very small percentage claiming any qualifications ... are out in force all over the social web trying to downspin.
For days it's been "this can't happen, that can't happen" and "the truth is that ..." and recommending people get their "facts" from NIE ... the nuclear industry's chief lobbyist.
But the real facts about "safe, clean, too cheap to meter" are all coming from Japan. And the reactors were made, long ago but still in use - like the 23 still in use in the United States - by our own General Electric.
At least in Japan the backup batteries lasted 8 hours. Here they only have to last 4 hours.
'A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan said wouldn't happen is in progress,' the [Japanese] Citizens' Nuclear Information Centre said. 'It is occurring as a result of an earthquake that they said would not happen.' http://www.blogger.com/www.guardian.co.u…
But for blind luck, we'd have already have been through this. 23 of them are out there waiting for their chance, and "our" experts are not offering any advice about what "their" experts could be doing better. Because (like here), the lobbyists and politicians have relegated the people's safety to a low priority, for a long, long time.
59
@55: It is very unlikely to reach the degree of spread as Chernobyl because there won't be a graphite fire, but it could certainly reach a similar magnitude locally.
Secondly, you must be confused because there are a minimum of THREE destroyed reactors. They completely gave up some days ago of ever using these reactors again. There is no such thing as "repairing" an even partially melted reactor. Not to mention that the area appears to be VERY significantly contaminated at this point, and large portions of the plant HAVE EXPLODED and HAVE BEEN INUNDATED BY A TSUNAMI.
Thirdly, "clean up the mess?" This seems to indicate you have little idea what you're talking about. "clean-up" may very well look like dumping cement all over everything or building a gigantic concrete box over the site.
They did not even fully clean up Three Mile Island, and that took TWENTY YEARS and a BILLION dollars. They ended up just leaving portions of contamination at the site for, well, basically forever.
Secondly, you must be confused because there are a minimum of THREE destroyed reactors. They completely gave up some days ago of ever using these reactors again. There is no such thing as "repairing" an even partially melted reactor. Not to mention that the area appears to be VERY significantly contaminated at this point, and large portions of the plant HAVE EXPLODED and HAVE BEEN INUNDATED BY A TSUNAMI.
Thirdly, "clean up the mess?" This seems to indicate you have little idea what you're talking about. "clean-up" may very well look like dumping cement all over everything or building a gigantic concrete box over the site.
They did not even fully clean up Three Mile Island, and that took TWENTY YEARS and a BILLION dollars. They ended up just leaving portions of contamination at the site for, well, basically forever.
60
@57: actually not very much.
That devastation was caused mostly all by the explosion itself.
This release of radioactivity has already likely significantly surpassed that event by orders of magnitude, and the releases so far have not been terrible...
That devastation was caused mostly all by the explosion itself.
This release of radioactivity has already likely significantly surpassed that event by orders of magnitude, and the releases so far have not been terrible...
61
It's a valid point, and while I've been a detractor of what I saw as alarmist postings before, I'm willing to admit that what appears to be worse than the worst case scenario seems to have happened, and things are terrible right now.
I completely agree that this is an engineering failure of pretty epic proportions; as well, there's an epic failure of planning in the societal inability to decide what to do with the used fuel, that has led to this spiraling out of control.
I like nuclear. When done right, there's a lot of potential for safe energy generation there; however, that "when done right" caveat is, of course, critical.
Now let's hope that things get under control at Fukushima soon.
I completely agree that this is an engineering failure of pretty epic proportions; as well, there's an epic failure of planning in the societal inability to decide what to do with the used fuel, that has led to this spiraling out of control.
I like nuclear. When done right, there's a lot of potential for safe energy generation there; however, that "when done right" caveat is, of course, critical.
Now let's hope that things get under control at Fukushima soon.
62
Lets hope they have enough lead-lined helicopters, pilots, and concrete available.
The likelihood that they regain any semblance of "control" here is an asymptote approaching zero.
It appears that TEPCO is putting enormous effort into preventing the uncontrolled release of any information about what the fuck is going on...
The likelihood that they regain any semblance of "control" here is an asymptote approaching zero.
It appears that TEPCO is putting enormous effort into preventing the uncontrolled release of any information about what the fuck is going on...
63
They're trying to put lipstick on the elephant in the room and pass it off as a super model. So much of what's going on is unknown territory. Simply put, this wasn't supposed to happen, the fact that shit is really going down shouldn't be a surprise. The government weights propaganda with trying to keep billions of people calm. When this story evolves, with the power of the internet, everyone feels like they're in the drivers seat. Everyone's read the wikipedia page on the who, what, where, when and why. We all consider ourselves experts. I suggest that this is a far larger problem than the earthquake, and far more dangerous. I don't know anymore than the scientists I've chosen to listen to, and they don't know anymore than science can tell you.
If you're looking for advise I'd tell you to look elsewhere. History has reminded me that we can't handle radiation levels like this. Don't expect us to fix it overnight. It took decades to let it get this bad, it's going to take many more to make it right.
If you're looking for advise I'd tell you to look elsewhere. History has reminded me that we can't handle radiation levels like this. Don't expect us to fix it overnight. It took decades to let it get this bad, it's going to take many more to make it right.
64
Popes and engineers often think they are infallible. It is important to often remind them that they are not.
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 (65) RSS