TEPCO confirms damage to part of No. 4 unit's spent nuke fuel

[AndyTiedye]

Source: Kyodo News

Some of the spent nuclear fuel rods stored in the No. 4 reactor building of the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi power plant were confirmed to be damaged, but most of them are believed to be in sound condition, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday.

The firm known as TEPCO said its analysis of a 400-milliliter water sample taken Tuesday from the No. 4 unit's spent nuclear fuel pool revealed the damage to some fuel rods in such a pool for the first time, as it detected higher-than-usual levels of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137.
…

According to TEPCO, radioactive iodine-131 amounting to 220 becquerels per cubic centimeter, cesium-134 of 88 becquerels and cesium-137 of 93 becquerels were detected in the pool water. Those substances are generated by nuclear fission.

The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the confirmed radioactive materials were up to 100,000 times higher than normal but that the higher readings may have also been caused by the pouring of rainwater containing much radioactivity or particles of radiation-emitting rubble in the pool.



Read more: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85295.html

[Angry Dragon]

1. Oh, Okay, it is just rain water

then that means the radiation is going into the atmosphere and then returning in the rain

Nothing to worry about...............

[madokie]

2. If it wasn't so serious

it would be fucking funny how the nuclear boys are trying to spin this. I''m surprised some of 'ems heads haven't unscrewed and hit the ground.

[Taft_Bathtub]

3. Do you feel the same way about Global Warming scientists?

Because it's the same "boys" -- aka scientists, that are saying these things. It's kind of sad how when it comes to Nuclear Energy many people on these forums sound awfully similar to climate-deniers.

[villager]

4. An example of the desperate spin right in this thread!

n/t

[chervilant]

7. Desperate

just about covers it...

One could also assert that person convolutes two disparate disciplines, but I doubt s/he would get the irony.

[Taft_Bathtub]

10. One could also assert you're strawmaning

Did I say Climate Scientists and Nuclear Scientists were the same profession/discipline? Nope. But they both take an incredible amount of education to get where they are, but somehow Climate Scientists are legitimate and Nuclear Scientists are "boys" or part of the "industry" or cannot be trusted.

[madokie]

15. You see nuclear energy producers are not in the least bit honest or one iota truthful

I've been around this ol block a few time in my 63 years and I've not seen or heard of a case yet where the nuclear industry is on the level.

[chervilant]

24. Yep,

When I was only 12, I read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which motivated me to become an activist. I was anti-nuclear from that point forward, and devoted some of my earliest activism to fighting the proliferation of nuclear reactors.

Now, I am most concerned about our species' over-population. We are like a plague of locusts on this planet, fouling the air, water, and land while destroying entire ecosystems in our hedonistic pursuit of the almighty dollar (or any of the other filthy lucre used on our planet). And, since we now live in exponential times, the catastrophic economic 'transformation' we're witnessing ripple through our global economy promises to inflict changes we haven't yet conceptualized.

Watching the hoi polloi pick sides, and lob verbal grenades at each other, as though our corporatist-driven political and/or religious ideologies are the most important framework within which we coexist on this planet, remains both disappointing and unsettling. I must constantly remind myself that our species is evolving; that every spiritual and intellectual milestone is a measurable step forward. I truly don't want to become a misanthrope...

[chervilant]

21. hmm...

You might want to avoid engaging in verbal conflict unarmed.

[madokie]

5. Sorry bub but there is no denier around this place

Nuclear energy is dangerous and wholly unnecessary. In fact it will do nothing to get us out of this green house fix we're in today. We're wasting time and throwing money away to even be giving it second thought.

[chervilant]

8. hmm...

Have you noticed they're scraping the bottom of the barrel to find their trolls? That, or they're just not paying them enough...

[madokie]

17. shore 'nuf

[Taft_Bathtub]

9. Zero carbon emissions and ready now

Unlike coal and natural gas, it emits no carbon, the fuel is plentiful and recyclable, and is ready now. Solar and Wind will also be part of the green energy policy but nuclear runs 24/7 unlike the other two, which also need pretty large leaps in battery technology to be reliable.

[bongbong]

12. Ha Ha!

The technical challenges to overcome the intermittent nature of wind & solar power are about 1/50th the challenges to make nukes safe.

That's probably why we're doing nukes instead of solar & wind. :sarcasm:

[Taft_Bathtub]

13. Have you heard of Thorium Reactors?

They address almost every issue with nuclear power. They cannot meltdown, they're cheap, they don't produce weapons grade material, and destroy excess waste.

The best part? The US Government developed them in the 1970s, the technology is literally gathering dust as the planet gets hotter from Coal/Natural Gas/Oil.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Benefits_and_challenges

[madokie]

14. Just where is a thorium reactor producing grid power located anyway

what I thought, no where.

[Taft_Bathtub]

16. Kakrapar-1 in India

The US also had one operational for 4 years from 1965-1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Existing_thorium_energy_projects
http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/

If you're content sitting on your thumbs while India, China, Russia, and France all develop green economies before the United States then by all means, keep on helping the oil lobby with your irrational nuclear energy phobia.

[bongbong]

18. That's nice

Sounds great, until there is another earthquake/tsunami/etc.

I'm still waiting to hear about loss of life due to spilled wind or spilled sun.

[Taft_Bathtub]

20. Still waiting for Solar/Wind to work full time

Or provide enough power to be worth the cost. Or be viable in all regions of the world.

Also when a tsunami/earthquake happens the Thorium Reactor just shuts off. It can't meltdown.

[bongbong]

33. Thats still nice

So are all the existing plants going to be converted to thorium plants overnight?

As I said before, the technological challenges to get solar & wind to supply us are 1/50th of what the tech challenges for nukes are. Actually, this has been the case since the 1970s. But one thing has stopped it - the oil companies & the power companies don't own the sun or the wind.

[chervilant]

25. True,

plus it's far more difficult to monopolize the sun and the wind, so that you can charge the hoi polloi out the wazoo for electricity.

[Taft_Bathtub]

27. Solar/Wind is more expensive than Nuclear

So I don't know where you're coming from here.

[DCKit]

29. That is a flat-out falsehood.

Unless, of course, you're counting the insanely huge subsidies to the nuclear industry.... and it's STILL more expensive.

[chervilant]

32. Thanks

and please note that the person who made that assertion thinks thorium reactors are a green answer to most of our energy problems, and that we have enough thorium to provide electricity to everyone for a thousand years. Why can't these pro-reactor people think outside that particular box? If we can develop thorium technology, we can develop solar and wind technology.

[chervilant]

6. OMG!

Nuclear scientists--and nuclear physicists, and the whole gamut of scientists involved in nuclear technology--are NOT the same "boys" who have trained to be climate scientists. You must have missed that lesson when you were a wee sprat.

[Taft_Bathtub]

11. Strawmaning is pretty sad please don't do it

You might have missed that lesson when you were a wee sprat.

[chervilant]

19. hmph.

Learn to spell, and go troll on a site that reflects your political insensibilities.

[Taft_Bathtub]

22. There's lots of pro-nuclear democrats/environmentalists

Just because you do not agree with them doesn't mean they're trolling.

[chervilant]

23. Wow...

Thorium reactors are alleged to produce 50% less radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium reactors, according to some sources. Other sources claim '10 to 10,000 times less' radioactive waste. hmm... Wonder which 'factoid' is accurate?

Gosh, if this doesn't sound familiar to you, perhaps you're too young to remember the pro-nuke corporatists working so very hard to make nuclear power sound safe, cheap, and sexy.

Moreover:

Powdered thorium metal is pyrophoric and will often ignite spontaneously in air. Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe. The decay of thorium does, however, create radon gas so caution should be exercised when thorium decays in closed spaces. Exposure to an aerosol of thorium can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas and blood, as lungs and other internal organs can be penetrated by alpha radiation. Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases.

This is from Wikipedia, and strikes me as a classic example of the 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' tactics used by pro-nuke corporatists who'd rather we not ask too many questions about the potential hazards of their exciting and sexier new version of their purportedly 'green' reactors.

[Taft_Bathtub]

26. Indeed, wow!

Lots of anecdotal conjectures used by you to attempt to refute scientific findings. It reminds me of the way some people doubt climate science data...

Also I don't understand your pointing out that it's a heavy metal. Heavy metals are used in solar panels as well. In nature Thorium is harmless.

[chervilant]

28. Just quoting YOUR sources, tub.

And, experience has taught me to doubt 'scientific findings' where nuclear energy is concerned. But, you go right ahead and snarf those red herrings, 'kay, sunshine?

[hayu_lol]

30. Much of the funding for thorium reactors was discontinued...

in favor of the plutonium producing reactors back toward the end of the cold war. Since then, minor research and design of thorium reactors has amounted to very little. That really is too bad, since thorium reactors are far safer in all aspects of operation than any other kind. Google Bill Wattenberg for his comments on thorium reactors.

Another plus for mining thorium is that the rare earths used in wind generation of electricity(now purchased from China)would also be mined--they are generally found in large thorium deposits(thorium is very common).

One result of the anti-nukers activities over the past several decades was the loss of funding for research into design, operation, and risk/benefit analysis of thorium reactors. For 40 years, sufficient funding was not made in this direction.

Further, the constant wailing over the storage of spent fuel rods from presently operating reactors, has prevented the building of sufficient reprocessing plants to reprocess those same rods. What amounts to tons of material could have been reduced to a very small amount. Shame that this happened because the problem would not exist in it's present form had we been able to safely reprocess those rods. Spent fuel rods, once the toxic materials have been removed, can be used again and again. Life of a fuel rod is roughly 3 years before reloading is necessary. Submarine reactors are loaded with an approximate 20 year fuel load.

Don't forget that Mother Earth, down in the crust, has her own fission reactors operating full time--all the time. That is one of the reasons we don't all turn into pop and mom ice cubes, i.e. they help keep the earth warm. The fission product produced in the crust surfaces as that nasty Radon Gas others are complaining about.

[chervilant]

31. My goodness...

Poor wee nuclear scientists! They're so maligned and misunderstood...