pffffft. You think that’s unsafe? Get a load of this!
On a more serious note, half mask respirators do help to reduce your exposure to radiation, especially long lived radioactive dusts and radon. However, when it comes to calculating your exposure you do not get credit for wearing a half mask, only a powered air purifying respirator. That said, I have no experience with nuclear power plants, but I’ve spent some time in a mill.
In case anyone wants something resembling facts, there is a breaking news crawl on the NHK World page.
Latest says that they are venting radioactive air. Any possible meltdown is still under investigation, which is what they’ve been saying for 12 or more hours.
Other items:
Dust masks is the de rigeur first line of defense when you’re in an environment that may be contaminated with radioactive particles. Skin is a fairly good defense against alpha, and if you shower/hose down when leaving the area, the exposure will be short-lived. If you breathe in any active dust, however, it’ll stay, emitting radiation, inside your body. Dust masks and disposable overclothing is exactly what you put in the kit for working in an area where there’s a risk of low-level nuclear exposure.
What’s the difference between an accident at a natural gas plant and an accident at a nuclear power plant?
An accident at a natural gas plant could actually cause a natural gas explosion.
CNN is saying the explosion at Plant 1 happened when the pumps failed as water was being pumped into the reactor.
They are currently flooding it with seawater, but that that will take up to 2 days.
There is a medical radiation response team in the area to determine risks and precautions. Getting a year’s exposure in an hour doesn’t sound like a good thing.
Yep. Again, the local governments seem to be well prepared, well organized and doing things correctly to protect their emergency workers and general populations.
I think we can all agree the OP is an idiot, yes?
Well, keep in mind the exposure level as reported is much higher than normal background, and the standard for nuclear power plants is to keep public & worker exposure “as low as reasonably achievable” (which is referred to by acronym: ALARA). The allowable public exposure is about 1 millisievert per year above background, and the standard for exposure of nuclear workers is to average less than 20 millisieverts per year above background over each 5 year period. -Keep in mind that “background”, i.e. naturally occuring exposure, is about 2.4 millisieverts per year.
So the level measured somewhere “near” the reactor in question (I wish they’d given more detail regarding this) exceeds that yearly allowable dose in one hour. This is consequential and needs to be taken seriously, but it isn’t enormous and depending on the source may not be difficult to deal with. It needs to be monitored, as the local government is doing, and precautions must be taken to protect workers and public, as the local government is doing.
Its not the technology nor the scientists that worry me about nuke power. I have little doubt that if I get together a cracker-jack team of engineers and physicists and say “Build me the safest possible nuke power plant”, a bang-up job can be done. Well, maybe that’s a poor choice of words. A glowing success can be…ok, never mind.
The trouble is about who makes decisions, and on what motivation. My nerd squad is motivated by science, and compete in terms of being the smartest guy in the room. Which is nifty, for my concerns.
Lets say we got a workable power plant design, got safeguards stacked upon safeguards, chances of anything really bad happening are a thousand to one (purely arbitrary figure, use whatever suits your agenda). Then, Dr. Smartypants von Sliderule points out that with the patented Sliderule Nuclar Induction System, the odds can be moved to a million to one.
Well heck, according to my moonbat set of values lets do it! But does it get done?
Maybe. Gotta run it past the bean-counters and the lawyers. How will this affect the profitability of the nuke plant? Some folks think that’s really important, we gotta be practical here.
If you are an investor in a nuke plant, you are motivated to think a thousand to one is good enough, if the Sliderule process will cut the profitability of your plant by fifty percent, you, being human, are likely to seek a good reason not to do it.
Isn’t that a good part of what happened with BP? It wasn’t not knowing how to do it safely, it was wanting to do it at a profit. Then, my safety is not in the hands of those guys most eager to design the safest possible nuke plant, the decision is in the hands of the guys who want to make money.
I trust the scientists and the nerds. I don’t trust the accountants.
Bzzt. Wrong. I get to film it from anywhere I want 360 degrees around it. So do you.
Here are a couple of good explanations of radiation exposure monitoring and health effects.
(Keep the units in mind when reading news reports, which are likely to be fuzzy on the units. The one cited earlier reports in “mircrosieverts” [sic], and the more common unit is a millisievert. One millisievert is equal to 1000 microsieverts.)
A summary of anti-nuke people:
Thousands of deaths and environmental disasters from fires, pollution, spills, etc due to conventional power generation means: ok.
Venting some gas after the largest earthquake in a country’s history: cause to stop an entire industry.
I would like to know if your reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki means you think this plant could actually explode in that fashion.
Best. List. Ever. 
Dolt. Cops are first responders, not the crack ninja radiation squad. Did I call you a dolt yet?
Dolt.
Former Navy nuclear power officer here.
Meltdowns are certainly possible, even in modern nuclear designs, because of the residual radioactive decay of daughter nuclides produced in a fissioning reactor (as xenophon41 has already noted). Even after the reactor shuts down, the decay of these daughter nuclides will continue to produce heat at a decreasing rate after shutdown. A good rule of thumb is the initial “decay heat” immediately after shutdown is about 10% of the reactor power prior to shutdown (assuming the reactor was operating for an extended period of time at that rate). So if a reactor was operating at 100% power for an extended period of time, the decay heat could be as high as 10% of the maximum reactor power immediately after shutdown.
This residual heat can be enough to cause damage to the reactor core if all cooling is also lost, which could happen if there are no emergency power sources, or if the emergency power sources are lost for an extended period of time.
Apparently several of the emergency power diesel generators at several of the plants have failed, and the backup battery sources of power have been depleted.
I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that the power plants in question do not have additional backup sources of emergency power, at least according to the news reports that I have seen. On the land-based nuclear power prototype plant I trained on years ago, we had multiple layers of emergency backup sources of power, and it is my understanding that all U.S. nuclear power plants have similar requirements.
BTW, it absolutely impossible for any nuclear power plant to explode like a nuclear bomb. It is physically impossible.
And thus, are apparently not worth protecting from radiation.
As already mentioned by levadrakon, but needs to be emphasized: Most people think that by negotiating with an all powerful sky fairy the outcome of a football game can be decided. What hope is their that they understand the safety, or lack thereof, of a nuclear power plant? Have enough people who they trust telling them it is safe and they’ll think it is safe. Otherwise, they believe the kook brigades. People are lemmings and they’ll only ‘think’ about those things that affect their daily lives and even then not much.
A better definition of risk, or at least one I’ve learned in class.
Risk=Impact x probability. eg. while the probability of a meltdown is low, the impact of it doing so may be high. Depending on the results the actual risk maybe low, medium or high.
Seconded. The diesel generators seem to have been the only redundancy in the power supply to the pumps. According to BBC, this is being nvestigated by the Japanese nuclear safety commission (I’ll try and find that article again).