Xpost fm LBN: Fukushima warning: danger level at nuclear plant jumps to 'serious'

[kristopher]

Fukushima warning: danger level at nuclear plant jumps to 'serious'
Japan's nuclear agency dramatically raises status after saying a day earlier that radioactive water leak was only an 'anomaly'

Justin McCurry in Osaka
theguardian.com, Wednesday 21 August 2013 02.50 EDT

...The Nuclear Regulation Authority has now said it will dramatically raise the incident's severity level from one to three on the eight-point scale used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for radiation releases. Each single-digit increase in the scale actually represents a tenfold increase in the severity of a radiological release, according to the IAEA.

...The leak is the single most dangerous failure at the plant since the 2011 meltdown, which warranted the maximum level of seven on the severity scale, putting it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster 25 years earlier.

...Tepco has admitted it has yet to identify the cause of the leak, in which highly radioactive water appears to have breached a steel storage tank and seeped into the ground. The leak from the tank, which can hold up to 1,000 tonnes of water, has yet to be stemmed, according to Japanese media reports.

The incident is separate from additional water leaks of up to 300 tonnes a day recently reported by Tepco.

More at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/21/leap-fukushima-danger-ranking

[peacebird]

1. Tepco has basically totally botched this effort.

[joshcryer]

2. BRWs were the worst design imaginable.

[kristopher]

3. Bullpucky

The nuclear fan club said the same thing about Chernobyl when they were assuring everyone that BWRs were totally safe.

The problem is using such a highly complex technological system with such a large potential downside for failure to boil water - nuclear in general is the worst concept imaginable. Especially when thru renewable generation you can accomplish everything positive that nuclear can offer with NONE of the downside.

[joshcryer]

4. BRWs require insane containment.

You have to have two shells to protect the damn thing, several meters thick concrete, the inner bits need to be solid steel, it's literally the stupidest way to do nuclear from an engineering perspective when much better options were already available.

[GliderGuider]

5. Are you sure you were reading with your intellect and not your emotions there?

He said BWR's are the worst design imaginable.

That means he was on your side. No bullpuckey.

[kristopher]

6. Not at all

That is standard excuse-making for the atomophiles. They said exactly the same thing about Chernobyl's design when they were telling the public that building BWRs was safe.

Now, post Fukushima they are blaming the problem on BWRs as they seek to build APRs or LFTRS etc.

The problem isn't a specific reactor design, it is the downside potential combined with the complexity of all nuclear fission designs. Human fallibility is the constant through all designs and is the actual source of danger.

Blaming it on a specific design is excuse-making.

[GliderGuider]

7. OK. Thanks. nt