No repeat of Chernobyl disaster for Japan: experts

[wtmusic]

Caution: actual scientist quoted - buzzkill for hysteriphiles

(Reuters) - Japan should not expect a repeat of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster after an explosion blew the roof off one of its nuclear power plants that had been shaken in a huge earthquake, experts said on Saturday.

<>

"If it's that, then we're not in such bad circumstances ... Despite the damage to the outer structure, as long as that steel inner vessel remains intact, then the vast majority of the radiation will be contained.

<>

Most experts said the relatively slight damage to the reactor was testimony to the improved security of nuclear power, something that has convinced more governments to adopt the technology in recent years despite environmentalists' concerns. "We must remember that there are 55 reactors in Japan and this was a huge earthquake, and as a test of the resilience and robustness of nuclear plants it seems they have withstood the effects very well," Regan said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-chernobyl-idUSTRE72B20I20110312

[tabatha]

1. I pray they are right, and do not have to revise their estimate.

[hunter]

2. Got page 2 of the article.

Try this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-chernobyl-idUSTRE72B20I20110312

[wtmusic]

3. Thx. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

10. And you think the government would lie to their own people

about something that could potentially kill a great many of them, just to...what? Save face? Prevent panic?

That's very cynical.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

16. Is there an election there in a couple weeks?

An event of the level that some are talking about here isn't something that you could hide. Thousands would be getting ill and dying right in front of the cameras.

we're talking about Japan here

Right. And they know exactly what radiation sickness looks like. "Nothing to see here... move along" works fine if you're talking about hiding a "2" on an imaginary 1-10 scale of nuclear accidents) by pretending it's a "1".

If it's a "5" they can't hide it by pretending it's a "1".

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

20. I do.

There's a range of possible outcomes at this point (after all that's gone wrong).

I just don't think that some people appreciate how incredibly large that range is. They hear "meltdown" and it means only one thing to them (and it's usually on the high end of whatever the spectrum is).

I can't say, unlike yourself, what exactly with any sense of certainty is unfolding at present.

Not unlike me at all.

will rest assured that you have declared that nobody
is getting ill and there are no consequences for these events. Whew!

I haven't said that at all. All I've said is that based on what we've heard so far, no consequences of that sort are unavoidable.

It may very well turn out that things are (or get) worse than what we've heard so far. They are, for instance, now up to six reactors with cooling failures. IIRC, that's essentially all but one of the ones that were on at this dual facility. That leaves alot of room for things to go wrong.

It's just that such a result is far from certain... in fact it's still statistically quite unlikely.

and
it was a spectacularly good idea to build Alot of plants in that area of the world,


It was. The alternatives (particularly for Japan) include lots of additional polution, balance-of-trade concerns, environmental impact and lots of indirect deaths. All of which would be certain, not "might happen in a worst-case scenario"

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

7. About 80 miles off the coast of Sendai

10% is a huge percentage - taken out of context.

When we consider that Fukushima #1 is the oldest reactor there (and one of the most primitive designs), and this scale of earthquake happens every 1,200 years, the odds sound a little better.

Some people have been injured, but there isn't one fatality (may change).

For your consideration. :hi:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

9. Please allow me to interrupt your hysteria with facts.

First off, only two of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors had noteworthy problems. Neither of them has melted down, and it appears a safe bet that neither of them WILL melt down, nor suffer any significant leakage. It also just so happens that these are their OLDEST reactors, built in the early 1970s. Even so, they survived the quake, and the newer plants didn't even flinch.

More to the point, they just survived the third worst earthquake in the history of the world, one which was barely 80 miles off shore--the 2004 quake that triggered the SE Asia tsunami was 155 miles offshore, for comparison--as well as more than ONE HUNDRED THIRTY foreshocks and aftershocks of magnitude 5, 6, or 7.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txlibdem]

21. 1,2,3. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Gosh, I just checked google news and found zero stories about a meltdown. Why are the international journalists hiding such a huge, juicy story that would make their career? What I did find is a lot of sensational journalism, now that DOES help a reporter's career unfortunately. But no mention of any meltdowns. Why is that, I wonder?!?

The age of the reactor is important. Do you drive a car with air bags? Cars in the US didn't have them in the 1960s when these reactors were designed, nor in the 1970s when they were built. Isn't the age of your car a good indicator of the safety features it has? That's a yes. These reactors in Japan do not have the advanced safety technology of even the reactors built in the 1980s. I'll bet that you would give "two shits" if your airbags in your car failed in a crash, if the crumple zones in the front end failed to keep the passenger cabin intact during a collision, if the roof caved in during a rollover, etc. All these improvements in automotive technology occurred long after the 1960s. It's the same concept for these reactors: newer is safer.

Yet there has been no meltdown. Unless you honestly believe that all the journalists in the world would pass up a story like that...

As to your point #3... pot... meet kettle.

1,2,3. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Thank you.

[ixion]

6. By insulting people who are genuinely concerned, you discredit your premise

And the experts opinion hinges entirely on this phrase:

"If it's that, then we're not in such bad circumstances"

That IS the question, because I've seen varying reports on what it was, exactly, that exploded.

[wtmusic]

8. People who are acting irrationally and refuse to listen to reason

are on their own. I really don't give a crap.

Did you see a report that said the containment vessel exploded? If so, I'd like to see it. :shrug:

[FBaggins]

13. True... but what about those for whom "concern" is tangential?

We absolutely should not insult people who are genuinely concerned. But we should educate those who are irrationally concerned so that they can have a little less fear of the unknown.

Just as importantly, there are plenty who gin up that fear to use it to influence public opinion and public policy.

That's particularly craven, wouldn't you say? To use the imagined fear of many thousands dying right whan many thousands DID just die of a different cause?

I think that the OP is just beaten down by dealing with that second type of interlocutor and just can't differentiate genuine concern as easily.


That IS the question, because I've seen varying reports on what it was, exactly, that exploded.

If it was the reactor core itself that had the explosion (and it was obviously large enough to blow the outer building apart), you would be looking at a FAR more serious event. It wouldn't compare to Chernobyl, but it would be the next-worst disaster on the list and there would be no way to hide it.

[hunter]

11. Here's a cut and paste from a previous post of mine:

I grabbed this picture off wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant

At the top of the reactor building is a metal enclosure housing the service crane. This enclosure apparently filled with hydrogen and exploded, blowing the metal paneling off. You can see the panels flying off in the video. Hydrogen will leak out of anything given the slightest opportunity.

Last I heard, the concrete and steel containment is still secure.

There's some intelligent coverage at World Nuclear News, and a good diagram of this type of reactor. Yeah, yeah, World Nuclear News, but I've pretty much given up on OMG! We're all gonna die! postings here on DU, CNN, and elsewhere. Some of the comments at the Oil Drum are hideous beyond belief... bless the DU moderators it's not so bad here.)

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html

It can't be easy for the nuclear techs and engineers at Fukushima. I'm sure a number of them have friends and family who are not accounted for.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

19. Thanks, great info. nt