Spent Fuel Hampers Efforts at Japanese Nuclear Plant (& damaged central command center)

[jpak]

Workers at Japan’s ravaged nuclear power plant on Tuesday renewed a bid to bring its command center back online and restore electricity to vital cooling systems but an overheating spent fuel pool hampered efforts and raised the threat of further radiation leaks.

The storage pool at Fukushima Daiichi Power Station’s No. 2 Reactor, which holds spent nuclear fuel rods, was spewing steam late Tuesday, forcing workers to divert their attention to dousing the reactor building with water. If unchecked the water in the pool could boil away, exposing the fuel rods and releasing large amounts of radiation into the air.“We cannot leave this alone and we must take care of it as quickly as possible,” Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director of Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, told reporters. Cooling systems at all of the plant’s six reactors were knocked out by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and power has since been restored to two reactors, units 5 and 6.

Workers continued efforts Tuesday on a power line to service the other four reactors though some of the machinery, including the water pumps that cool the reactors, may be damaged, officials said. That could mean more repair work before the four reactors can be connected to a power supply.

Another major effort: to restore full power and resume operations at the plant’s central command center, which will make it easier for workers to monitor heat and water levels at the reactors. Recovery efforts have been hindered by difficulties in gauging readings of crucial data, forcing officials to work off aerial photos and speculation. Workers continued pumping water into three reactors using fire hoses to keep them from overheating, while firefighters aimed streams of water at their spent fuel pools through gaps in the buildings housing the reactors, blown out in a series of explosions that rocked the site last week.

<more>

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Link here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/asia/23japan.html

;-)

[GliderGuider]

2. From that link:

Medical teams are treating large numbers of cases of hypothermia and pneumonia, Mr. Markus said, as well as illness from swallowing polluted water. Doctors also are treating conditions tied to Japan’s comparatively older population, like diabetes and high blood pressure. The need for medicine is constant, Mr. Markus said.

“One doctor in the field described the situation of receiving more medicine as pouring water in the desert,” he said.

Unseasonably cold weather has added to the daily struggle for refugees and relief workers. Local forecasters are predicting overnight temperatures this week to hover around freezing in the prefectures hardest hit by the tsunami, in the northeast, as a cold front moves into the region.

Lest we lose sight of the immediate needs in all this.

[kristopher]

3. Are you aware that the nuclear plant is now a major part of the problems you note?

They have trouble getting drivers to go into the area with the situation as it is at Fukushima.

It is also impeding traffic out of the area because of the same labor problem affecting clean up.

[FBaggins]

4. What an odd use of the word "major"

Still got that confusion with issues of scale, eh?

Hardly a surprise.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

7. nothing to see here says the man employed by the Nuclear industry.

Hardly a surprise.

What do you make of the poisoned tapwater? http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_38.html

or the radioactive soil 40 km away? http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_35.html

and what do you know, there new smoke from 2 and 3 today.
Nothing to be worried about, right?

[FBaggins]

8. What do I make of them?

There was a nuclear power plant with multiple reactors that had at least some level of meltdown... of course there's going to be SOME radiation for a period of time.

The question is "how much" and how does it compare to the lies you fearmongers have been telling people.

On THAT scale, no, there's nothing to worry about.

What do you make of the poisoned tapwater?

That's high enough that I would want it treated if it were going to last for a long time... but this won't. The levels aren't high enough to be "poisoned" at normal consumption levels.

or the radioactive soil 40 km away?

Pretty much the same thing. High enough levels to avoid, but not high enough to be a real danger. As the article says, if you stayed in the area for a full year you would get four times an annual dose. The problem with the fearmongering spin is that (even if four years' dose was a real problem) the Iodine 131 isn't going to be there for a full year, now is it?

[jpak]

11. No - but the tritium, 137-Cs and 90-Sr will be

yup

[Statistical]

13. Tritium really that is on your bad list?

Weak alpha emitter, short biological half life tritium?

[jpak]

18. It readily exchanges with hydrogen in water and biological materials & half-life = 12 years

so yeah its on the bad list

yup

[FBaggins]

20. And how much has been detected?

Aren't you one of the ones who was concerned about tritium from Vt Yankee?

[jpak]

25. It hasn't been reported, but there was a lot of hydrogen released and it went boom

lots of tritium too escaped too no doubt.

yup

[FBaggins]

29. No doubt?

That's what you've got?

We haven't seen any significant amounts reported... but you just know that they must be there?

You do know that unless the tritium is caught up in water... it's lighter than air just like hydrogen, right?

Are you expecting to find large concentrations of the stuff in the soil?

[jpak]

33. No doubt. large tritium releases occurred during TMI and at SRP reactors

it happens

no doubt

yup

[Statistical]

35. No they didn't.

Even if they did it would be flushed from the body very rapidly.

Tritium is not a significant danger.

[jpak]

37. Oh yes they did

yup

[FBaggins]

44. Do you have a better source than "Oh yes they did" ?

I mean... your "yup" is so compelling... but a little evidence might be nice.

[jpak]

47. here ya go

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=7505361&q=tritium+savannah+river+plant&uid=790525610&setcookie=yes

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF A TRITIUM GAS RELEASE FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT ON MAY 2, 1974
MARTER, WL

AVAILABLE FROM NTIS, SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161 AS REPT. NO. DP-1369. REPORT DP-1369, NOVEMBER 1974. 29 P, 11 FIG, 8 REF.

ON MAY 2, 1974, 479,000 CI OF TRITIUM GAS WAS RELEASED FROM A SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT EXHAUST STACK TO THE ATMOSPHERE OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT FOUR MINUTES. THE RELEASE RESULTED FROM A METALLURGICAL FAILURE OF A PROCESS VALVE IN A TRITIUM PROCESSING FACILITY. LIGHT WINDS OF 4 TO 6 MPH CARRIED THE TRITIUM IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION. CALCULATIONS INDICATE IT PASSED OUT TO SEA FROM THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST ABOUT 36 HOURS AFTER THE RELEASE. MEASUREMENTS OF TRITIUM OFFPLANT INDICATED THAT LESS THAN 1% OF THE TRITIUM WAS IN THE OXIDE FORM. A MAXIMUM POTENTIAL DOSE TO A PERSON (FROM INHALATION AND SKIN ABSORPTION) AT THE PUFF CENTERLINE ON THE PLANT BOUNDARY WAS CALCULATED TO BE 0.14 MREM, LESS THAN 1% OF THE ANNUAL DOSE RECEIVED FROM NATURAL RADIOACTIVITY. THE POPULATION DOSE WAS CALCULATED TO BE 8 MAN-REM BEFORE THE TRITIUM PASSED OUT TO SEA. AN EXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING PROGRAM WAS CONDUCTED AFTER THE RELEASE TO VERIFY THE PREDICTED TRAJECTORY OF THE TRITIUM AND TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL DOSE COMMITMENT. POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL DOSES VIA THE FOOD CHAIN WERE LESS THAN 1 MREM. (HOUSER-ORNL)

[FBaggins]

49. Is TMI in Savannah River now?

The Tritium release you cite was from a tritium processing facility, not a reactor problem.

We're looking for something that might demonstrate the likelihood that fukushima has released large amounts of tritium that just (for some reason) isn't getting reported or measured.

Care to try again?

[FBaggins]

46. Keep in mind where the hydrogen that "went boom" came from.

Tritium doesn't come from irradiated hydrogen. It's a fission product (in LWRs anyway).

IOW, released/exploded hydrogen doesn't imply a big release of tritium.

[Statistical]

24. Tritium has a biological half life of 8.5 days.

The body continually sheds water, tritium is no different. That combined with its very low decay energy means it neither remains in the body very long nor has the potential to do significant damage even if it did remain in the body indefinitely. The compounding effect of short biological half life and weak alpha emitter make it incredibly benign, of all radioisotopes there are very few less benign than tritium.

One would need to drink an incredibly large amount of tritium to get any sizable dose. Given the ease at which it dillutes unless one were to drink directly from a condenser containing tritinated steam intaking the amount of water necessary to concentrate tritium in the system would be very difficult. With a short biological half life one would need to continually replenish the supply of tritium to keep up the dose.

Tritium. :rofl:

[jpak]

28. A single dose will be eliminated in a few days - but not if it is being consumed constantly

in food and water.

and it is not an alpha emitter - beta @ 0.019 MeV max. If it was alpha emitter that would be bad news...

And again its long term exposure of the most vulnerable segments of the population - infants and children - that are the concern.

yup

tritium
alpha emitter

:rofl:

[Statistical]

34. Name a single person ever killed by tritium.

Name one. Anywhere in the world. Oh yeah you can't.

"A single dose will be eliminated in a few days - but not if it is being consumed constantly"
How would that happen exactly unless the source of tritium never stopped. This reactor kept pumping out tritium for next thousand years.

Also are you aware how weak 0.019 MeV is?


One you assume there is a lot of tritium
Two you assume the amount release would remain constant
Three you assume one could even accumulate a significant dose.
Four you assume that it "concentrates" in humans.

None of those assumptions are valid.

[jpak]

40. Standard happy talk talk talking point - kids drinking tritiated water and food will maintain

some concentration of tritium in their bodies until they stop consuming it.

It has a physical half-life of 12 years and will take over a century to decay away once it enters the environment.

yup

[Statistical]

43. It is easily detectable. It would appear in any blood, saliva, or urine sample.

Which is why you can cite a significant tritium exposure in a single person on the planet right?

Let me know when anyone finds a single person with detectable levels of tritium in their system?

There is no significant risk from tritium. Lumping it in with Strontium-90 is pure hyperbole.

[jpak]

48. Can you cite the name of one child that developed thyroid cancer from Chernobyl?

silliness

yup

[FBaggins]

19. At far lower levels.

You've either got a dose that approaches the worry zone that won't BE there a year from now... or you've got an element that WILL be there a year from now, but didn't start in a concentration high enough to merit great concern.

But don't worry. I'm sure that somebody will end up with a dose to be concerned about. I know you would just hate it if they didn't.

[jpak]

22. Do you know what the ambient concentrations are in either the soil or seawater?

no you don't

You do realize that tritium, 137-Cs and 90-Sr will accumulate in the human food chain - right?

right?

And you do realize the infants and children under 18 are the most vulnerable to contaminated food and water - right?

right?

[Statistical]

26. Tritium does not accumulate in either humans or human food chain.

All biological entities continually lose water and must replenish it to avoid death.
Putting tritium in the same category as Cs-137 and Sr-90 is a joke.

[jpak]

30. It is not a joke if your kids have to consume it

yup

[Statistical]

32. What kid is CONSUMING pure tritium?

Thats right none.

Even if somoeone was I would rather drink a gallon of pure tritium than a teaspoon of say draino.

Fear of tritium is a joke. Lead, PCBs, mercuiry, aresenic, heavy metals, and hundreds of other contaminants are ALREADY in water we drink in trace levels. All of which are far more dangerous and have an infinite halflife.

Tritium has negligble energy and an inability to accumulate or stay in biological entities. You lumping H3 in with Sr-90 is a joke and pure fear mongering.

[jpak]

36. You are not making sense - no one is "drinking" pure tritium gas - it's a gas, OK

It's the tritiated water and tritium contaminated food they will/are consuming.

tritium = alpha emitter = dumbass mongering

yup

:rofl:

[Statistical]

38. So at best people are drinking water with extremely trace amounts of tritium.

Trace amounts that not only don't accumulate but drop rapidly as body replaces spent water.

Tritium is not a serious threat to human life.

[jpak]

41. It is one part of the radionuclide cocktail that Japanese kids will be exposed to

apologist fail

yup

[FBaggins]

31. Dodging the question?

Of course you are.

HOW MUCH has been detected? It can "accumulate" all day long, but if it started at levels 10,000 times lower than what would be a concern... should I get concerned that it might accumulate to ten times as high (but still 1000 times to low)?

[abqmufc]

21. PSRs comment on risk...

I'd suggest looking at the entire page I've included below, I feel it does provide some perspective on evaluating risk.

This is from the Physicians for Social Responsibility WA chapter. PSR-WA, has been an active voice and participant in addressing adverse impacts to the releases at the Hanford Nuclear Facility in WA State. To me this directly demonstrates a reason why people are so concerned, maybe even to the point of fear-mongering. For myself, I think back to 5 years ago when EPA was telling to the general public there was no need to regulate the criteria pollutant PM (particulate matter) in rural America b/c there was no evidence it posed a risk to human health. EPA literally had the guts to say PM posed no risk in an area with less than a population density of one million people. The Agency rejected all studies provided by American Lung Association, Federally Recognized Tribes, among others. Just last year EPA said there was no need to monitor NOX in rural America b/c there was no risk. The reality is EPA can say such things b/c the federal government has never authorized a study. Furthermore, any study brought to EPA's attention is rejected instantly (it doesn't fit our criteria, or it wasn't peer reviewed, it exceeds our scope, etc, etc etc)

FROM PSR-WA:

"How accurate are the risks from radiation?

Current cancer risk rates are likely to underestimate the risk by a factor of ten or more.(4) These risk estimates are heavily based on studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb survivors, which are flawed due to uncertain dose estimates and confounding exposures, and because when long-term studies finally did begin, people most susceptible to radiation had already died, leading to underestimation of the risks.(5)"

http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/hanford/hanford-and-human-health.html
------------------------------------
Here is a letter from NACAA (formerly STAPPA/ALAPCO) commenting on the proposed PM ruling in 2006. In this Administration the EPA has said there is no need to monitor NOx in rural areas b/c it poses no risk...despite scientific studies demonstrating otherwise. I've written public comments letters on proposed rules for Federally Recognized Tribes for over 10 years. As a result I've seen EPA and other federal agencies state "there is no health risk", but yet we can demonstrate there is. DOE did not admit a health risk existed surrounding the Hanford releases until the mid 1990s. The release were from the 1940s - 1980s....
http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/Comments-intro-FINAL-lthd.pdf

[FBaggins]

27. One thing I spot right away.

It's incredibly disingenuous to pretend that the safety/dose tables rely on studies done after the bombing of Japan. There are decades of good studies that have been done (hundreds upon hundreds of them) that go into those risk estimates.

[abqmufc]

42. You are correct but maybe miss the point...?

I think the claim by PSR (and myself) is the federal government (DOE, EPA ,IHS, etc) uses crap data (out dated, poor methodology, etc) to justify their claims of 'no or low risk'. Ignore the good data and only use what serves your purpose...the federal government does this often.

Another prime example of this tactic being used by the federal government is fish consumption studies for the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. All studies done on safety of fish consumption from the impacted area are based upon a 'midwestern anglo-saxxon average consumption of fish' this is greatly different from the average fish consumption of the Native American Tribes who surround the Hanford facility and hold treaty rights to fishing. It is also much different than an anglo-saxxon who lives around the Hanford Reach who more than likely eats more local fish b/c they are available (versus what a person may consume in Iowa or Illinois). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a Nez Perce Tribal member is going to eat 5 to 10 times more fish than any analysis of fish consumption done by the federal government and thus the current studies don't address the true impact. Yet despite knowing that info, the federal government shirked their federal trust responsibility and ignored the Tribes claims. Tribal data of fish in the Hanford area paints a vastly different picture than that of the federal government.

I have 7 DOE and ATSDR toxicology studies on plutonium sitting on my bookshelf from when I worked with the Nez Perce Tribe, all say "no known health impacts". Really, how can this be? But when you look at the methodology used to justify the governments claim you can see why they came up with their findings-the methodology is flawed.

I don't disagree that hundreds of studies exist, the issue is does the federal government use them in assessing risk? I would argue no, I base this argument on the examples I previously gave, including Hanford.

Just like the fear-mongers, the federal government distorts data and studies to serve its purposes and interests.

[FBaggins]

45. If the government were the only source for such data, you would have a point.

Particularly if it were just ONE government... instead of research done by several nations and both public/private groups.

[abqmufc]

50. Valid point. But then you assume governments actually do that.

As the STAPPA/ALPCO letter states, the federal government ignored all available science and went with only those studies which served their purpose. Those acceptable studies only looked at rural PM health concerns and thus ignored any study which said rural PM has the same negative health impacts as urban PM. STAPPA/ALPCO (now NACAA, National Association of Clean Air Agencies) is the professional association of all (minus Tribes) clean air agencies and regulators. It is made up of all state clean air agencies, all county clean air agencies, and all city clean air agencies in the United States.

Just as I pointed out in explaining the Hanford fish studies, the federal government completely ignored all available science which looked at health concerns related to the contaminated fish in the Columbia River and only went with those studies which supported there already set public policy.

It really comes down to risk based analysis (and the use of a cost-benefit analysis as the decision making tool) or precautionary principle methodology......

Most science is rooted in a risk based methodology which sets a baseline of risk far to high, often at mortality or cancer. There are other health impacts correlated to the exposure of radionuclides and toxins that are a result from a nuclear accident that then are not accounted for b/c they are deemed no risk. This is methodology is worsened b/c in the USA, all federal policy goes through a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Since 1980 any and all federal policy and rules must pass a CBA by OMB. CBAs are not a tool I want deciding my ecological nor energy policy by. A CBA never shows true costs (health impacts, ecological impacts) as it is an economic tool.

I've always subscribe to the precautionary principle as being the appropriate methodology for making public policy.

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

[FBaggins]

51. precautionary principle

Of course that's correct. That's why the safety levels for radioactive exposure and water/food contamination are not set anywhere near the danger levels that have been identified, but hundreds to thousands of times lower.

But at some point, it doesn't matter what the impacts of higher levels of exposure are estimated at (or mis-estimated). Because we're talking about the other end of the scale. I live in a brick home. That means that I get a certain amount of exposure every day from those bricks. If a given level in Japan is reported and it's lower then those bricks (or eating a banana or getting an xray, or dozens of other examples of everyday events)... I can safely ignore overblown cries of great danger.

If "elevated" levels of radio-iodine are discovered in a water supply and it's slightly higher than the regulatory levels in that country... you can expect it to make the news. But if those levels were set for annual consumption but you know the contamination won't be there a year from now... AND you know that the measures level is still below the EPA requirements, European requirements and Canadian requirements for safety...

...well... let's just say I'm not thinking Chernobyl here.

[abqmufc]

52. Yep and governments suspend regulations or change acceptable levels not based on science but need

Post Katrina the US suspended the Clean Air Act for refineries. Why? Because the risk of impact to human health was deemed less than the need for quick oil/gasoline. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Post Japan nuclear accident, the Japanese government raises the level of radiation a worker is allowed to be exposed to. Why? Not b/c new science shows the old level was too low, but rather b/c of circumstances. The Japanese government must have workers at the plant and thus had to raise the level of acceptable dosage to fits its agenda and policy needs, the move also exempts them (under US law at least) from any lawsuit attempted by workers or families of workers.

US EPA when setting standards for arsenic according to the Safe Drinking Water Act had to go against its own science of what was deemed safe b/c of the levels that are now seen in the Colorado River due to US military training and testing operations around the Southwest (nuclear and non-nuclear). The government didn't magically raise the level b/c we could indeed consume more arsenic, rather they realized that the US government had allowed arsenic levels to rise so high that no federal or state agency could lower the of arsenic now found in the Colorado River water today to what they originally deemed 'safe'.

I can list at least 25 recent federal air quality rules (including the GHG rules now being drafted by the US EPA) that the US EPA has ignored the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee (CAASAC) and the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) recommendations (rooted in science and review of the available research) just to ensure its rules fit into administration agendas. Both CAASAC and CAAAC are the senior EPA advisory boards for the Clean Air Act.

I firmly believe ones beliefs are molded by many things, especially your environment. It is nice that you live in a brick home and have a sense of security. Most of my friends still reside in mud based homes, out on the Navajo Nation. Many of those home lie within less than 1/4 mile from a uranium tailings pile left over from the uranium boom that ended over 35 years ago. A place that has over 300 uranium tailings piles dotting the landscape. It wasn't until 15 years ago, EPA came out and began to assess the damage (just assess, not reclamation). By the time they said there was a risk, at least 1,000 people died due to exposure. BIA said it was safe to graze sheep and cattle around those ponds of water which were laced with uranium dust. Most of the cattle and sheep rotted from the inside out. After you've been lied to by the federal government for hundreds of years, despite seeing the truth with your own eyes, it is tough to accept much of what is deemed safe....when you see the impact of the nuclear era in places like Navajo Nation, Southern Utah, Laguna Pueblo, Pueblo of Acoma, and around such town as Grants, Gallup, Albuquerque, and Los Alamos, New Mexico you'll never trust a person who tells radionuclides are safe.

They keep comparing it to being out in the sun...but they forget to then say, 'its really no longer healthy to go out in the sun w/o sunscreen', it didn't use to be that way.

[abqmufc]

53. FYI, UC Berkley Nuke department data.

Seems more accessible than EPA's data. This is just and FYI, not trying to demonstrate anything by it.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/ucbairsampling

[kristopher]

54. Everywhere there is a nuclear industry it is a quasi-governmental entity

Everywhere there is a nuclear power exporting industry it is a quasi-governmental organization that is the textbook definition of the industrial leg of the Military Industrial Complex.

You want to assert that such entities - and remember this is nuclear power and nuclear power is vewy vewy secwet - are to be trusted as entities that embrace public transparency and openness.

What a kidder you are.

We can actually test that belief by examining and comparing the accuracy of projections made by the different agencies that are both in and out of the industry,

Using the data represented in this graph a comprehensive analysis tells us that they lie to the public, and it even extends to the academic departments of major universities that receive funding from the nuclear industry.


It is clear the nuclear industry, including their regulators and government affiliated research centers, and their closely tied community of nuclear engineering academics cannot be trusted in the manner you suggest.

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Journal of Science Engineering Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Received: 10 August 2009

Abstract

Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity.

Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.



Thank you very much.

[GliderGuider]

6. Of course, but it's a complicating factor, not the primary problem.

I get the impression that our fear of radiation is making us focus on that problem to the exclusion of the primary human tragedy that is unfolding. That's the price of unreason. Hundreds of people are dying from hypothermia now and more will die from it in the next weeks. A few people may die of cancer in 20 years due to Fukushima radiation. That is also a tragedy, but only an ideologue would say those potential deaths are more significant than the ones that are actually happening. I don't think you're in that category, but it's very easy for fear to distort our perceptions.

[kristopher]

9. When you are suffering from hypothermia because people are afraid to bring supplies

it is the cause of the fear that is the problem. That cause is the ongoing crisis at Fukushima.

Being afraid of what will kill you is entirely rational.

The Japanese know the long term impacts of this silent killer with great intimacy. Nearly everyone has met and talked with people who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki only to die decades later from the effects.

You people are starting to cross the line. Making light of people's misery and suffering to protect an industry's profits is amoral reprehensible behavior. What is unfortunate is that it is something we've all come to expect from the nuclear industry.

[GliderGuider]

10. Do you have evidence that fear is keeping rescue workers out of the affected areas?

That would surprise me. I have seen a second-hand report that fuel availability was hampering relief operations, but I have yet to hear anyone call Japanese relief workers chickenshits. Everything I've seen tells me that the Japanese are a noble and stoic people who perform heroically under stress.

[kristopher]

12. Yes. My brother-in-law and father-in law; both in Tokyo.

Noble Japanese, huh. Do I really need to go back and drag out some of your more disgustingly racist screeds about Japanese and whaling? Keep pushing.

[GliderGuider]

14. They are rescue workers?

Japanese whaling has nothing to do with courage. This is about courage and moving beyond your fears. That is on clear display these days in Japan. Outside the TEPCO boardrooms at any rate.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[GliderGuider]

16. I have no doubt that some Japanese are scared out of their wits.

I also have no doubt that some others aren't and that some are afraid but are performing their duties in spite of it.

The true catastrophe extends well beyond Fukushima prefecture, out where the fear of fallout isn't a concern. There have been many people evacuated from around the plant, and that's doubtlessly causing additional problems. There's no question that the whole thing is a clusterfuck.

My distaste is for pusillanimous executives, and extends to whalers and their political apologists. It's about behaviour, there's nothing racial about it at all. You might be playing that card in this situation because you feel frustrated, fearful and angry. If so, I sympathize. It must be very stressful living in that situation. I'm sure if I were there I wouldn't be quite so dispassionate.

[kristopher]

17. Bullshit. Your remarks about the Japanese have been nothing short of disgusting

Now isn't the time ti get into it, but don't get up on some high horse pretending you have no fricking past to judge your present words against. Another example of your hypocritical approach is the way you are actively helping to spin for nuclear after saying for the past week how wrong you've been.

[GliderGuider]

23. You and I disagree on many levels.

I don't stick to a standard script when it comes to nuclear power. My rejection of technology in general sets your teeth on edge. My criticism of the traditional Japanese industry of whaling has rubbed you the wrong way. We have different world views, different styles, and different tolerance levels. I suspect all that is adding to your frustration level.

Since you are in an unsettled situation right now, it would probably be helpful not to get too wound up over our differences, and concentrate on the olive branches I've tried to extend. This is not real life, it's just the internet. If it gets to be too much, we can turn off our computers and walk away - I do that from time to time and it helps a great deal.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[caraher]

5. It's a juggling act over there

3 reactor cores and 4 spent fuel pools acting up...

A 1983 NRC report on the safety of spent fuel pools focusing on BWRs of this design had some prescient nuggets.

After a seismic event severe enough to breach a seismic Category I spent fuel pool, the probability of RHR failure is higher than that of our previous scenarios. Moreover, the RHR might not be able to supply enough makeup. Finally, the time frame is very short, considering that manual valves must be opened and other earthquake-induced problems may be distracting plant personnel.

Ultimately, makeup to the pool could be supplied by bringing in a fire hose (60 gpm would suffice). Although one would expect that the failure probability associated with bringing in a hose (over a period of four or more days) would be very low, it must also be remembered that working next to 385,000 gallons of potentially contaminated boiling water on top of a 10-story building is not a trivial problem.

It all sounds simple enough in theory - just add water to stave off disaster. But even simple things are often not so simple in a high radiation environment...