Thanks for that link, Exapno. It is unbelievably difficult to find accurate and detailed information about this on the Internet right now.
Just heard this on the NPR news summary at the top of the hour: yes, they’re pumping seawater into the core of a second reactor. Their main coverage starts now…
news now reports four plants in trouble.
3 reactors at 2 sites need unusual methods to cool the reactors. where seawater is used the reactor is then junk.
OK I get confused 'cause I read online so many different things
Let me ask, I am assuming a plant is not the same a nuclear reactor right?
In other words, a PLANT might have 3 or 4 reactors in it right?
That said, let me ask for clarification, how many PLANTS were effected by the tsunami and how many reactors are in that plant or each plant.
Most of the news has been about the Fukushima I (aka Daiichi which means “first”). This power plant has 6 reactors. The steam explosion we all saw on the news is the #1 reactor here. And last I heard, #3 reactor is also in trouble and they’re having to vent steam into the atmosphere.
There is also a nearby Fukushima II (Daini) plant with 4 reactors. The tsunami damaged cooling systems there as well, but they’ve announced that they have been repaired.
That’s the beauty of the net. Just make up your own theory, put it online, and instant credibility.
But yes, its not easy to find accurate information. The threads on SD are good if you allow for some histrionic characters. In fact there is plenty of valuable information but it takes time to read and you need to recall your basic school science.
The Company running the Japanese reactors also cut corners: they have a long string of scandals for things like completly faking both safety inspections and necessary repairs.
You are jingoistic and uninformed if you believe only communists cut corners or have unsafe designs.
And yes, meltdown like China syndrome is very much a possibility.
Because the current political climate in Japan, like in the US, is “nuclear power is safe, ours is the bestest, accidents happen elsewhere” plus corruption in the company running the reactor avoiding the best safety measures because they cost more than just adequate measures. Or simply faking reports, which is cheapest of all.
No, but the Japanese never expected a tsunami this big after an earthquake. They had normal redudancy with batteries and diesel generators after an earthquake - both of which were damaged by the wave. And then the outer cover on one block exploded. This can become a China syndrome yet, and it can be an additional explosion of radioactive material if the seawater they are pumping in right now turns to steam faster than it can cool.
And the Japanese company was running an extremly old badly repaired reactor - cracks in the concrete before the earthquake because reports were faked.
Do you mean loons as people who point out the dangers of nuclear reactors? Because that doesn’t sound loony to me: to point out that there are a bunch of reactors around the world designed and built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that are very far away from current standards and have not been updated since (because the companies running them get around having to spend money) and that have regular “incidents” that are waved away.
If you want to claim with a straight face that nuclear power is safe, then you should shut off the old unsafe reactors today, not tommorrow, and esp. turn off reactors on known geologic faults and cracks.
But of course it’s easier to call people with rational worries “loons”.
The outer containment has already blown on one block, and the inner pressure cooker is useless when the fuel rods reach 2000 deg. C in a meltdown China syndrome. Chernoybyl was esp. bad because of the graphite, but right now in the Japanese reactors the fuel rods are also too hot and not cooling down fast enough. They can still heat up enough for a melt-down.
For the past three days,** no-one**, not even the Japanese engineers, know exactly what’s going on inside, because the measuring devices have been melted by the heat they were not designed for, because they didn’t expect things to get that hot. That’s how bad it is - the experts don’t know what’s going on, or how they can stop it, they hope for the best in Japan, while the German physicists are worrying about the worst.
And the evacuation zone of 20 km is worthless - in Ogawa they measured 400 times the safe amount, before realising that this was pollution from Fukujima, 100 km south of them.
The piecemeal information tactic of the Japanese govt. and the Electric company have done nothing for reassurance, either, of course.
Why ever would you? Does CNN even know where Japan is on a map, or are they confusing it with another country down there? Do they have any reporters on the ground down there? Any physicists experts they contact who explain the matter?
I wouldn’t trust CNN for real news on anything.
According to several reports the explosions seen at these nuclear plants is due to hydrogen.
Where does the hydrogen come from? Is water split into hydrogen and oxygen in the reactor? I have a background in physics and I couldn’t think of any other reason for hydrogen to be there.
the fuel rods are clad in a zirconium alloy. If the water level drops so the tops of the rods are no longer immersed, the exposed ends get very hot from the decay heat. The hot zirconium reacts with the steam to form zirconium hydroxide or oxide plus hydrogen.
news now say that reactor 2 at Fukushima Dai-ichi were fully exposed for a time. sea water is being used.
news announced that USA Navy ships off the coast to provide aid have relocated because of radiation levels are higher than they want to stay exposed to.
The prevailing winds are from the west. This is a good thing, as it means any radioactive contamination is going out to sea, where it will decay harmlessly, instead of going over land, where it could cause problems.
Ships downwind would likely find it prudent to relocate, primarily to minimize their exposure, but also, in the case of nuclear-powered ships, because any radioactive contamination detected from outside sources would make it more difficult to determine if the ship was having a problem with its own nuclear power plant.
Thanks, that clears that up.
That wasn’t a containment of any kind, it was a sheet metal “shed” on top of the containment to protect the overhead crane from the weather. The concrete containment still appears to be completely intact.
Aside from that, it’s hard to know what is really going on. It’s not clear where they are introducing the seawater. There are many small penetrations in the reactor vessel and associated piping that may have failed and are letting water out. One would imagine that they could easily replenish water lost through these small leaks. However, if there has not been a large-scale failure of the vessel by now, it is very unlikely that there will be. “China Syndrome” is a theatrical term that is not helpful in describing any failure scenario.
Still, the effort to cool down the reactors seems to be taking longer than it should. They have probably had to deviate from any type of contingency plan that may have existed, which is worrisome because it’s easy to screw things up when you have to make decisions quickly. Also, the core is probably damaged in some unknown way, which makes it harder to predict how it will react to different recovery strategies. Water passages could be plugged up and/or the fuel geometry could have changed.
news now say that reactor 2 at Fukushima Dai-ichi were fully exposed for a time. sea water is being used.
this has happened again.
I don’t know why you keep spreading misinformation. Is it just fear-mongering, or are you just trying to push your blatant anti-nuclear power agenda? :rolleyes:
The facts are:
[ol]
[li]None of the containment structures have been breached at the Fukushima power plant. Instead, the outer skin of the building was damaged due to the combustion of hydrogen gas present in steam that was intentionally vented from the reactor.[/li][li]Operators vented the steam to keep pressure from building up inside the pressure vessel, which is still intact.[/li][li]You neglected to mention the primary containment structure that is designed to entirely contain the core, even if it completely melts down. Note that this structure was not present in the Chernobyl design.[/li][li]You do realize that the “China Syndrome” was fiction, right?[/li][/ol]
Even if one or more of the Fukushima suffers a complete meltdown, it will not and cannot possibly be as bad as the Chernobyl disaster, so stop bringing it up.
I can guarantee this: the loss of life due to even a complete meltdown of all three of the Fukushima reactors will be negligible when compared to the death toll of the earthquake/tsunami itself. In addition, the loss of life (if any) will be negligible when compared to the worldwide death toll associated with coal mining. Officially, about 5,000 coal miners died in China alone (in 2006). Cite.
From the cited article:
I do think that nuclear power is safe, especially when compared to the primary alternatives of coal- and other fossil fuel-powered plants.