Nuke plants and earthquakes,

[MadHound]

As we watch with fear and horror as Japan's nuclear reactors teeter on the edge of complete disaster due to last night's earthquake, don't feel so smug about out situation at home. We've got a number of nuclear plants of our own that are located on or dangerously close to a nuclear fault.

"Several U.S. atomic reactors may be especially vulnerable to earthquakes. The twin reactor Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California was already built before it was discovered that an earthquake fault line associated with the infamous San Andreas Fault lay just offshore in the Pacific Ocean. "
<http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0718-14.htm>

Not if, but when the New Madrid fault goes, we're going to have major problems with a number of nuclear reactors in the area. There are dozens of reactors within a hundred mile radius of the fault line, and the underlying rock strata is made up of limestone, a horrible mix. When New Madrid goes, we could see a massive wave of problems much like Japan is experiencing now, or worse.

This is just one more reason why we need to stay away from nuclear power. We don't need it, it is too expensive, and far too dangerous.

[MadHound]

1. kick n/t

[SidDithers]

2. "teeter on the edge of complete disaster"?...

Really?

Do you have details the rest of us don't?

Sid

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Details? We don't need no steenkin details. " - Homer

"Relax. Nothing could possibly go wrong." - Homer

[MadHound]

When cooling systems fail and evacuations are ordered,

Yeah, I'd say the situation is teetering on the edge of disaster.

[WatsonT]

12. Just the hyperbole radiating from this reactor is enough to destroy the entire solar system!

If not more.


In addition our nuclear plants have been dumping hysteria in to *our water supply that our children drink* for decades!

[MadHound]

14. No, not hysteria, just tritium

<http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=tritium+leaks&cp=13&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=tritium+leaks&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=873ae0af01cc3324>

But pay no attention to the facts, just insinuate that nuclear opponents are hysterical, even when they have facts on their side. Anything to push the nuclear agenda forward, right?

Edit for functional link.

[FBaggins]

20. Oh please... bringing up tritium leaks actually proves that "hysteria" was the correct call.

[MadHound]

22. Really? How so?

I don't think that being alarmed about years and decades of radioactive material leaking into our streams and groundwater is "hysterical".

The fact that you're trying to paint it as such says a lot about your own views and outlook, none of it good.

[FBaggins]

27. Nope... it just says that I have more of a scientific background

and don't scare easily with language like "years and decades of radioactive material leaking into our streams and groundwater".

We're surrounded by radiation all the time. It leaks into most of our homes constantly. The question is how much.

I don't remember whether you were involved in the conversation a year or so ago about the tritium leak from Vermont Yankee, so I'll summarize:

There's tritium probably sitting in the "Exit" sign that you may be able to see from your desk. If it falls to the floor and cracks open, you probably have a tritium leak that's more significant than most of the reactor leaks that you've read about (it's certainly in the ballpark). You're not supposed to throw those things away in the trash, but it has happened (because most people don't know what's in there). You would be surprised how many landfills leak more tritium than Vermont Yankee has.

Does this mean that it isn't something that should be regulated? No. Does it mean that there shouldn't be consequences for the plant or that plants shouldn't be designed better to contain such leaks? No. But it also doesn't mean that there's some massive invisible public danger that we should panic about... or even consider posting on the same thread as a reactor with a potential cooling accident that could (at least in theory) results in a REAL issue.

[MadHound]

32. Ah, the old "scientific background" card.

Sorry bub, it doesn't play with me, I'll see your "scientific background" and raise with "worked in a nuclear plant for a number of years, so I truly do know what the fuck I'm talking about".

Is tritium as dangerous as a flow blown core meltdown, no. But it is still a danger to all of us. Did I say that tritium leaks were as dangerous as a full blown meltdown, no, but hey, thanks for trying to stuff words in my mouth.

Don't believe me? Don't believe somebody who worked in the nuclear industry for years and had access to reports and memos that you don't even have a clue exist? Then here, I'll give you a few links to peruse in order to better educate yourself.

"“Clinical studies prove that laboratory exposure to tritium causes cancer, birth defects and genetic damage. Federal standards are not health and safety standards but rather ‘permissible’ release limits to economically manage the large volume of radioactive waste generated at reactors. The recent release of the National Academy of Sciences report on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) confirms that there is no established safe threshold for radiation exposure without increased risk.'
<http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/tritiumnews.htm>

"But groups such as the National Physicians for Social Responsibility and Citizen Awareness Network say that tritium, like other radionuclides, is a serious threat to the health of humans and the environment.

Tritium, which is a beta emitter, causes cancer and birth defects, said Ira Helfand, a doctor at Cooley Dickinson in Northampton, Mass., and the co-founder and a former president of National Physicians for Social Responsibility "
<http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/etr_what-are-the-real-dangers-of-tritium--801974.html>

And let's not forget that many tritium leaks are either under-reported, or simply not reported at all.

'Lochbaum wrote that the statement was "directly and irrefutably contradicted" by a 1982 letter to NRC staff that reported "an unmonitored release of radioactive liquid to the soil" near a waste tank. Lochbaum wrote that the licensee's "inaccurate questionnaire response" was "particularly irksome" because a station groundwater monitoring network had been installed in 1983 as a direct response to the 1982 radioactive leak."
<http://www.tmia.com/node/364>

The danger of tritium leaks, though not invisible, is the next best thing. It is scoffed at, it gets little press, yet meanwhile tens of thousands of gallons of contaminated water have leaked into the ground, our streams, and our groundwater. Sure, it doesn't have the big, explosive effect that a meltdown does, but it is a danger to humans none the less.

[FBaggins]

37. Worked scrubbing the floors maybe?

Let's test, shall we?

Sure, it doesn't have the big, explosive effect that a meltdown does, but it is a danger to humans none the less.

Of course it isn't the same. But you also can't pretend that just ANY exposure is really something the public needs to take action on ("action" in this case meaning "we won't build nuclear plants any longer and should close the ones we have"). The question is what precisely is the danger from the event you're discussing? Not "this is radiation and radiation has been shown in the lab to be a bad thing". These things are quantifiable and measurable. You're either capable of it or you're blowing smoke. Some small number of additional cancers occur every year because of xrays, but we don't get rid of xray machines. Is the amount of tritium leaked something that will cause one more person in the state to die six months early... or is is a health hazard that it more serious?

It's not a difficult calculation to make. Can you take the highest concentration of tritium reported in one of the wells on site (at VT Yankee - not miles away diluted a billion times over) and tell me what my total exposure would be if I drank a gallon of the stuff? Then compare that exposure to say an xray or breathing radon at a normal household level for a given number of days or some other common/unavoidable exposure?

Will you have paragraphs of bluster dancing around the question while trying to pretend "I really know what I'm talking about - you'll have to take my word for it" or will you answer straight up?

[SidDithers]

43. This should be good...

:popcorn:

Sid

[FBaggins]

46. Not a chance.

I've never run into someone on that side of the argument who was able/willing to perform the calculation (because if they did... they wouldn't be ON that side of the argument). They just run around in circles playing distraction games.

Having said that. I've always like MH and appreciate a number of posts on other topics. I doubt very seriously that this is an integrity thing. He's a good guy.

[MadHound]

54. Straight up eh, OK, how's this for straight up

First of all, the greatest tritium concentration wasn't at Vermont Yankee, but rather Fremantle Bay in Australia. But let me go through the exercise with you anyway. The concentration of tritium was approximately 1.1 Bq/liter. This is greater than many areas in Iraq that are suffering from DU poisoning. Anyway, your exposure if you don't consume the water is negligible, tritium is a beta emitter, which can be shielded by something as thin as a piece of paper. The trouble is, you don't have that shielding in place when you consume tritium in your drinking water. Whoops. This can, and does lead to cancers and various other problems, including birth defects, since tritium can cross the placental wall, among other tissues. And let's not forget the fact that tritium has a half life of a little over twelve years, which means that it can play havoc for a long while.

Concentration levels of tritium are less than those of radon in a contaminated house, which is roughly 37 Bq/cubic meter, but more than DU contaminated dust in Iraq. Thus, the danger is there, present, and being pumped into our water supply and soil.

And just for your information and edification, no, I didn't simply scrub floors, I was a lab rat at a research reactor.

What sort of expertise to you bring to this subject, other than simply propaganda?

[FBaggins]

57. A simple "no, I can't" would have sufficed.

First of all, the greatest tritium concentration wasn't at Vermont Yankee

I just used it as an example that many here are familiar with.

What sort of expertise to you bring to this subject, other than simply propaganda?

I majored in Physics and am familiar with the technology. The math isn't that complicated.

I was a lab rat at a research reactor.

That's nice... but not necessarily any more relevant to the question at hand than mopping floors. Do you have a sufficient background with the math/science involved?

but more than DU contaminated dust in Iraq.

If you go on to tell me that DU is a radiation hazard of any real significance, you don't need to bother answering that last question... I'll already know that the answer is "no".

Thus, the danger is there, present, and being pumped into our water supply and soil.

That "thus" doesn't follow. So you're saying that radon in an average home is a more significant exposure than drinking the tritium from the worst well yet you go on to "thus there is a danger"?

Can you compare the volume of tritiated water (whatever your worst estimate is) to the volume of water that it MUST be diluted by before it reached the water table? You know... come up with a WORST case scenario for how much exposure there would be if that water were from someone's tap?

Feel free to round up any figure you like. We're not talking about orders of magnitude close to dangerous here. My guess is that the worst possible exposure isn't going to add up to many xrays.


BTW - I hope you recognize that I'm pulling your leg. I enjoy the debate and like to take jabs. I don't at all mean for it to be personal.

[MadHound]

60. Don't mean it to be personal, yet you keep making it personal

You cast aspersions on what was a profession of mine, while admitting that no, you have no experience in the nuclear industry. You fail to acknowledge that being a lab rat, an HP, has any scientific validity or credibility, instead you simply take personal jabs in order to both undermine my position and cover up the flaws in your own.

The fact that you don't consider DU dust a radiation hazard simply goes to show your own ignorance in this matter, since several scientific groups, ranging from the UN to the IAEA.

You are not just pulling my leg, you are being a condescending asshole who is using insults rather than facts to try and make your points. My attitude at this point is that it is pointless to continue this discussion with you, I have given you what you want, yet you continue with the insults while providing absolutely no facts of your own to back up your sorry ass

It is a nice day out, and I have better things to do than trade facts for insults with such as you. You, for whatever reason, seem incapable or unwilling to accept reality in this case, so why should I even try. You simply aren't worth it, and I'm not going to jump any more hoops for your edification, just so you can heap more scorn and ridicule on me.

[FBaggins]

80. No... you're taking it personal. There's a difference.

My point was that I'm neither questioning your honesty or intelligence. I think that you're approaching the subject honestly but without the facts. You're mistaken... not deceptive.

You cast aspersions on what was a profession of mine

No I didn't. I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate that your profession WAS relevant. "Worked in a reactor" doesn't add credibility on the subject because LOTS of people work in reactors and can't provide relevant feedback on this issue. It's like you announced yourself as an expert on mad cow disease because you grew up on a dairy farm. There's nothing in the second statement that justifies the first.

Moreover... anyone can claim anything on the internet. I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate whether your claim should add credibility. You failed.

while admitting that no, you have no experience in the nuclear industry.

Did I "admit" that somewhere? I seem to have missed it. I've actually spent more than a watch or two in the engineering spaces of a pair of navy submarine classes, but there wasn't anything there that makes my opinion more relevant on health physiscs issues. (Though the people who mop the floors there probably CAN answer the question I gave you). The fact that I understand the science is what matters.

fail to acknowledge that being a lab rat, an HP, has any scientific validity or credibility

Sorry if I didn't genuflect properly... but you haven't demonstrated that it HAS.

attitude at this point is that it is pointless to continue this discussion with you

And we all know why that is. Don't we? You can only dodge the facts so long.

Let me give you a clue how I know that you can't answer the question (though as predicted, you will bluster through pretending that you could). I asked you what the exposure or dose would be from drinking tritiated water and compare it to what you might get from radon.

You didn't even answer in terms of exposure OR dose. You gave units of activity. You're not even speaking the same language.

who is using insults

Lol. Did you by any chance read your own post?

[MadHound]

87. Project much?

You have done nothing in this exchange except question my honesty and intelligence. The very fact that you put out that I "mopped floors" is casting aspersions. And yes, I answered your question about dosage, but apparently you don't know enough to figure that out, so you retort with insults instead.

It is you who is doing the dodging, simply by the fact that instead of engaging in a rational conversation, you engage in personal attacks instead. That right there tells me all I need to know about your so called expertise.

Thus, it seems pointless to continue this conversation, since you have nothing of substance to contribute. Bye:hi:

[FBaggins]

88. Nope.

I have not questioned either your honesty or intelligence. I've questioned your competence at the subject in question. There's a big difference. We've both claimed that we know what we're talking about and that the other one is wrong. Internet claims are worth exactly the paper they're printed on. :) I was giving you an opportunity to demonstrate a relevant (and pretty simple) level of understanding. You failed to do so (and as predicted, bluster that you won't waste your time trying).

The very fact that you put out that I "mopped floors" is casting aspersions.

No it wasn't. It was a leg-pulling attempt to point out that "working in a reactor" doesn't mean that you actually understand anything about what we're talking about here. It was a cute way of saying "so?"

And yes, I answered your question about dosage, but apparently you don't know enough to figure that out,

Look... if you don't know the difference between activity and exposure, why even pretend you know what you're talking about? You don't even have the basic vocabulary to address the question... let alone the physics. That's not "casting aspersions"... I don't know of any way to say "you're wrong and don't even appear to know what you don't know" without leaving enough room for you to take it personally if that's where you insist on going. But think about it, do you insist that the only way to NOT insult you is to accept that you're right?

Let's add another humorous example: "And let's not forget the fact that tritium has a half life of a little over twelve years, which means that it can play havoc for a long while.

This is tritiated water we're talking about. Is it your belief that water stays in your body for twelve years? :rofl: What's the biological half life of tritium? We'll just both pretend you know what that means, though I can't imagine how you could make the prior statement if you did (oh darn it... you're going to take that personally again. How am I supposed to use a sense of humor to point out your errors without that happening?).

As for the rest of your avoidance... do we really need to go there?

[wtmusic]

63. More radiation in a banana than at Vermont Yankee "ground zero"

and that's good enough for the NRC.

NRC renews Vermont Yankee license

http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/53323/nrc-renews-vermont-yankee-license?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[MadHound]

65. Oh, I'm sure there is more radiation at Vermont Yankee than in a banana,

And I know all too well what a shill the NRC is for the nuclear industry. I've worked with them far too much not to know.

[wtmusic]

72. Actually about 1/27 of that in a banana.

Average banana is 2100 picocuries, tritium sample at VY was 1,300 pc in two liters of well water.

Average banana weights 120g; 1L water weights 1000g.

2100/120 = 17.5 pc/g in a banana
1300/2000 = .65 pc/g at VY

17.5/.65 = 26.9

by mass

[MadHound]

74. Except for the fact that the levels have risen since that initial test

"Levels found in the last few days exceed the federal standard for drinking water, although they were found in monitoring wells, not drinking water wells."

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/business/energy-environment/28nuclear.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299865403-nBXU54RySb3bwpPp4HJspQ>

So much for being safer than a banana:eyes:

[wtmusic]

77. Actually, safer than just about everything.

No elevated levels of tritium found offsite.

"Can the radiation dose from tritium produced in nuclear power be compared to the dose a person receives from natural background radioactivity or from medical procedures?

*Tritium is present naturally in the environment and the radiation produced by natural tritium is identical to the radiation produced by tritium from nuclear power plants.
*The radiation dose from tritium can be directly compared to the radiation dose from any other type of radiation, including natural background radiation and those received during medical procedures.
*The tritium dose from nuclear power plants is much lower than the exposures attributable to natural background radiation and medical administrations.
*Humans receive approximately 50% of their annual radiation dose from natural background radiation, 48% from medical procedures (e.g., x-rays), and 2% from consumer products. Doses from tritium and nuclear power plant effluents are a negligible contribution to the background radiation to which people are normally exposed, and they account for less than 0.1% of the total background dose (NCRP, 2009) As an example, assume that a residential drinking water well sample contains tritium at the level of 1,600 picocuries per liter (a comparable tritium level was identified in a drinking water well near the Braidwood Station nuclear facility). The radiation dose from drinking water at this level for a full year (using EPA assumptions) is 0.3 millirem (mrem), which is:
o at least two thousand to five thousand times lower than the dose from a medical procedure involving a full-body computed tomography (CT) scan (e.g., 500 to 1,500 mrem from a CT scan)
o one thousand times lower than the approximate 300 mrem dose from natural background radiation
o fifty times lower than the dose from natural radioactivity (potassium) in your body (e.g., 15 mrem from potassium)
o twelve times lower than the dose from a round-trip cross-country airplane flight (e.g., 4 mrem from Washington, DC to Los Angeles and back)"

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

[FBaggins]

86. Crickets?

Gee... I would have at least expected "Your source is the NRC so we know it's a lie!" from someone by this point.

Not nice, btw, to give away answers to questions that people are avoiding. It makes it easier to pretend that they aren't avoiding them. :)

[FBaggins]

85. The federal standards for drinking water aren't the line between "dangerous" and "not".

They're far more conservative than that (as they should be).

But it's ridiculous to talk about the level "rising" as if that means something. How much did they rise and what does that mean?

although they were found in monitoring wells, not drinking water wells.

Another point that you're ignoring (though now it's in your own post).

Where's the closest drinking water well and how much dillution will there be between the monitoring well and the first drop that a human consumes? Ten to one? A thousand to one?

More like uncounted billions to one.

So what's the exposure compared to a banana now? And does it really matter if the "levels" are 20% higher?

[spin]

91. I'm wearing a watch that uses tritium right now ...

Traser H3 P6508 Code Blue Tritium Watch

It's VERY easy to read in the dark.

[FBaggins]

93. Run!

Oh... but take the darn thing off first!

[hobbit709]

to everyone downwind of Chernobyl, Tritium was the LEAST of their worries.

[FBaggins]

49. Indeed cuz.

But not everthing with the word "nuclear" on it is the same thing as "chernobyl" just because it too was "nuclear".

[hobbit709]

52. True

you ingest a little tritium and deuterium every time you drink a little water. It's those other fission byproducts that you really don't want getting out. That's been my beef with the nuclear power industry-where do you keep the leftovers. The pyramids couldn't even keep the pharaoh's mummy safe.

[robdogbucky]

29. We now have our resident expert, Sid, to answer any questions...

So, Sid, your expertise in these matters were duly displayed 11 months ago with Deepwater Horizon. Care to share your "expertise," with us on this disaster? I recall you were positive, based on your many years in marine drilling issues in the lakes of Canada, that the gulf gusher was not that bad, remember? You said it would no way surpass Exxon Valdez or the Ixtoc gushers?

How's that analysis looking now?

Anyway, here are a few questions for our DUers this morning:

1) How many nuclear reactors were in operation last night in Japan when the quake hit?

2) What sorts of plans does Japan have for just such emergencies vis-a-vis a nuc disaster brought on by a disaster like this quake?

3) If radiation is released as result of reactor breach in Japan, where does it go?

4) How far and how long would it take for the radiation to spread?



Class dismissed, you have your assignment


This could be a disaster like we have never seen.


I will be back in 15 minutes to provide the answers.


No cheating.

[SidDithers]

31. You recall incorrectly...

I didn't in any way or form say Deepwater wouldn't exceed Exxon Valdez. I said, that at the time the comparisons were being made, that the volumes weren't as large as Valdez, and that it would have to go on for a significant period of time to approach Valdez.

I also, repeatedly, brought up Ixtoc as a potential scenario if the engineers couldn't cap the Deepwater wellhead, and the well leaked for months.

I look forward to your answers. Remember to double check your work.

Sid

[robdogbucky]

100. Sid, go look it up, you were in denial

that Deepwater Horizon was as big as it was, that is, of course, until I provided you several links to several experts that were projecting just that. Go look it up, I did.

You thanked me for those links then joined the choir and were full of "I sure hope this doesn't get worse, this is terrible," etc.

I'm happy to be corrected if you can prove me wrong.

Look it up, it's back there in April/May, 20109 in the archived threads. Just DU Google search it. It is good for the soul.




Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb

[SidDithers]

102. Post the link where I said Deepwater wouldn't be as big as Valdez...

Here are my relevant comments from threads where I used the word Valdez.

Exxon Valdez spilled ~ 11 million gallons at the 13,000 gallons per hour spill rate reported earlier, this rig would have to leak for 35 days to equal what was spilled from the Valdez.

. It isn't as bad as the Valdez...yet...
The Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil. At 42,000 gallons per day, this spill has to go for more than 260 days to spill an equal amount.

Does anyone remember the Ixtoc 1 oil rig spill?...

Ixtoc 1 was a deep drilling rig leased to PEMEX, Mexico's state oil company. It had a blowout in June of 1979, and began leaking oil into the Gulf, between 420,000 gallons and 1.2 million gallons daily.

It continued to leak that much oil for almost 10 months, before a second well could be drilled to relieve the pressure and cap the leak. In total, more than 100,000,000 gallons of oil were spilled, almost 10 times as much as the Exxon Valdez.

Right now, the Deepwater horizon is leaking ~42,000 gallons per day. It will have to continue to leak at that rate for 8 months to be as bad as the Valdez. It will have to leak for 6 1/2 years to be as bad as Ixtoc.

In no way am I trying to minimize the Deepwater Horizon situation. The spill from the Deepwater horizon is an unmitigated disaster, and will negatively impact the Gulf environment for years to come. I am simply trying to add perspective about the scale of this spill compared to other spills.

What I'm saying is that we're less than a week into this incident. Those involved need to do all they can to protect sensitive areas, stem the flow from the leaks, and begin the process of clean-up. This spill is undeniably awful, but similarities to the worst oil spills in history are, at this point, premature.

The sad truth is that much of that 1800 sq miles won't be cleaned up. They'll probably apply dispersants by air, to try to break up the slick and let it sink. I'm hoping the ocean experts will at least have the time to set up protection for sensitive coastal areas.

The best case would be if the deep sea robotics are successful in shutting the blowout prevention valves, and that drilling of emergency bypass wells won't be necessary. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been attempted and failed yet.

200,000 gallons per day FOR 4 YEARS will give you 300,000,000 gallons...

I'm not minimizing the Deepwater Horizon, as I've posted many times. But some posters have no fucking clue just how big the biggest oil spills were. Comparing Deepwater Horizon to Kuwait or Ixtoc 1, in terms of volume spilled, is way premature. Comparisons to Exxon Valdez are becoming more accurate, especially if it takes more than 2 months to drill the relief wells and get the leaking well capped, but even Exxon Valdez is only about 30th in terms of biggest oil spills.

Environmentally, Deepwater has the potential to become a hugely damaging spill, because of it's location and proximity to coastal areas.

Hyperbole, however, is in nobody's interest.

Through the whole spill, I cautioned about flying off half-cocked without details. As more accurate estimates of flow rates became available, I amended my comments to reflect the new details. I never, however, said that Deepwater wouldn't exceed Valdez, only that it would have to continue for a significant period of time to do so (which, obviously it did).

Now, you go find the link to the post where I said Deepwater would never be as big as Valdez. Remember to double check your work.

Sid

[robdogbucky]

34. Here ya go....

1) 55

2) No known emergency plans to deal with such a disaster to their plants.

3) Up, up and away and down, down and away. Aside from any radiation that gets into the oceans then carried by streams and tides, when it is dispersed into the atmosphere in Japan.

4) It takes 7 days to traverse the globe.

[SidDithers]

42. Without even looking, I can tell you that your answer to #1 is wrong...

How many nuclear reactors were in operation last night in Japan when the quake hit?
Your answer - 55

The Fukushima Daiichi complex, with 6 reactors, only had 3 in operation last night.
3 others were shut down for scheduled maintenance.

I told you to double check your work.

Sid

[FBaggins]

50. And #2 is laughable.

To think Japan just doesn't have any plans for dealing with earthquakes and their potential impact on reactors?

Did Japan slide into the 3rd world last week and I missed it?

[SidDithers]

53. "No known emergency plans"...

I guess if robdogbucky doesn't know about them, they don't exist.

Sid

[robdogbucky]

99. No, oh arrogant one, but...

I am referring to the evac plans, which have never been promulgated in Japan because there is no where to go. That is how densely it is populated. And I believe that there are so many plants, that as we are now seeing today, the radiation emitted from Fukushima is now being blamed for the radiation being detected at the Oganawa (or whatever it is named) plant only 60 miles from Fukushima.

You can see the dilemma for the Japanese planners. There was an emergency protocol plan for the plants created just last December. But we are seeing just how effective all that is, eh? That is just 3 months ago. And that is only because nuclear watchdog committees have been demanding it.

Any more bits of arrogance you wish to impart in answer to a serious series of questions?

Japan is just lucky the epicenter was not directl beneath Tokyo. Population 30 million the last time I looked, but you probably have different information.

What is your fallback on this? They couldn't foresee an earthquake this large?



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb

[robdogbucky]

98. So, Sid, you cheated from your answer

"3 others were shut down for scheduled maintenance.

What about the gist of the questions?

You know, 55 is the number of plants. You couldn't know the other 3 being shut down for maintenance without cheating.

Aside from not addressing the thrust of my post and then trying to diss me, could you not find it in your dig and burn for profit heart to sit down and learn something? There is a pattern of disinformation and coverup in PAST INCIDENTS OCCURRING AT JAPAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES:


"...Japan's nuclear industry was not hit as hard by the effects of the Three Mile Island accident (TMI) or the Chernobyl disaster as some other countries. Construction of new plants continued to be strong through the 1980s, 1990s, and up to the present day. However, starting in the mid-1990s there were several nuclear related accidents and cover-ups in Japan that eroded public perception of the industry, resulting in protests and resistance to new plants. These accidents included the Tokaimura nuclear accident, the Mihama steam explosion, cover-ups after an accidents at the Monju reactor, among others, more recently the Chūetsu offshore earthquake aftermath. While exact details may be in dispute, it is clear that the safety culture in Japan's nuclear industry has come under greater scrutiny.<1> Canceled plant orders include:

The Maki NPP at Maki, Niigata (Kambara) - Canceled in 2003
The Kushima NPP at Kushima, Miyazaki - 1997
The Ashihama NPP at Ashihama, Mie - 2000
The Hōhoku NPP at Hōhoku, Yamaguchi - 1994
The Suzu NPP at Suzu, Ishikawa - 2003
Note that the Suzu NPP plant proposal is said to be "frozen", meaning that it may continue sometime in the future if economic factors turn more in its favor, though there has been no sign of this happening.

These cancellations reflect to some degree the safety concerns that surfaced after the Monju cover-up (1995) and the Tokaimura accident (1999) and could be compared to the situation in the United States where there was a large number of plant order cancellations after TMI and the Chernobyl disaster. However, it is important to note that most cancellations in Japan are a result of 10, 15, or more years of postponed work and poor support. Through the same time period there were also some new plants connected to the grid, and as of 2007, construction is in progress on several other plants. Japan has thus yet to see a complete break in the construction of new nuclear plants, which has happened in the United States and France...

...Accidents of note include:<6>

1981: almost 300 workers were exposed to excessive levels of radiation after a fuel rod ruptured during repairs at the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant.<6>
December 1995: the fast breeder Monju Nuclear Power Plant sodium leak.<6>
March 1997: the Tokai reprocessing waste explosion.<6>
1999: a fuel loading system malfunctioned at a nuclear plant in the Fukui Prefecture and set off an uncontrolled nuclear reaction and explosion.<6>
September 1999: the criticality accident at the Tokai fuel fabrication facility.<6>
August 2002: a widespread falsification scandal starting in that lead to shut down all of Tokyo Electric Power Company’s 17 nuclear reactors; Tokyo Electric's officials had falsified inspection records and attempted to hide cracks in reactor vessel shrouds in 13 of its 17 units.<7>
9 August 2004: five workers were killed after a steam explosion at the Mihama-3 station; the subsequent investigation revealed a serious lack in systematic inspection in Japanese nuclear plants, which led to a massive inspection program.<7>
16 July 2007: a severe earthquake (measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale) hit the region where Tokyo Electric's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is located and radioactive water spilled into the Sea of Japan; as of March 2009, all of the reactors remain shut down for damage verification and repairs; the plant with seven units was the largest single nuclear power station in the world.<7>
2008: an earthquake cracked the reactor cooling towers at the Kurihara Nuclear Power Plant, spilling wastewater and damaging the reactor core.<6>
March 11, 2011: after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, electrical problems at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant prevented cooling pumps for reactor #1 from functioning. A nuclear emergency was declared under Japanese law due to cooling mechanism failure. Population were evacuated to a distance of 10km. Steam was vented to reduce pressure, but a large explosion occured the following day. The amount of radiation released is unclear.<8> It was the first time a nuclear emergency had been declared in Japan..."

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


Now we move on to those emergency plans I talked about



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!

rdb

[SidDithers]

101. No, I didn't cheat...

because I had already read an article earlier in the day about Fukushima having 6 reactors, only 3 of which were in operation, and 3 of which were down for scheduled maintenance.

I told you to double check your work, and you failed. Sorry.

Class dismissed.

Sid

[Rabblevox]

4. I was beaten and jailed trying to stop Diablo Canyon in the 80's (we failed) and it was only built..

to withstand a 7.5 And it WASN'T built BEFORE knowledge of the fault. WE TOLD THEM!!!


FUCK FUCK FUCK! Sometimes I just want to cut my goddamned throat and get it over with. I've been on the front lines since the 70's, and we've fucking lost, and I'm sick and tired.

[MadHound]

5. I was jailed for trying to stop Callaway in the late seventies,

The potential for disaster resulting from New Madrid letting go is huge as well. It is located one hundred miles away from the fault, and the underlying rock is limestone, riddled with caves and sinkholes. If New Madrid goes, we're going to have huge problems up and down the Ohio river valley.

[lonestarnot]

6. I'm sorry Rabblevox. I know how you feel.

But no cutting of throats please. :hug:

[Rabblevox]

8. no cutting of throats. agreed. sorry for the hyperbole. (but I still don't know what to do next)

[lonestarnot]

9. I don't think anyone has the answers about now. If we keep discussing,

maybe we will come up with it.

[jillan]

11. Thank you for trying to make a difference. I appreciate you!

[hunter]

26. We had the police break into our motel room while we were sleeping.

They were looking for drugs supposedly.

We didn't have anything interesting.

Of course the entire point of the visit was to intimidate us.

It was sort of awkward for everyone because we weren't intimidated.

How'd you manage to get beat up?

[Overseas]

7. K&R!

So much of the cost of nuclear power is left out of the equation.

I was really hopeful that Democrats would blaze in with President Obama to get us going with green energy to supplement the oil we all know we will need to use for decades longer.

Conservation technologies, solar, wind, mass transit, etc. -- those should be a major part of our "defense" budget. Redeploy billions from war abroad to alternative energies and conservation here at home.

[jillan]

10. This is exactly why I am AGAINST nuclear power. I don't care how clean people say it is - it's NOT.

[WatsonT]

13. Well that certainly trumps the science.

[originalpckelly]

18. The SCIENCE is that nuclear radiation is one of the worst forms of pollution...

and that the nuclear power industry has managed to propagandize the left with this clean energy nonsense.

You won't have to worry about global warming if you die of cancer.

[pickle juice]

23. Fossil fuel burning power units have produced far more carcinogens

than nuclear ones and the safety records aren't even close.

[MadHound]

25. And the truth is we don't need to use either fossil fuel or nuclear anymore,

But instead can fulfill all our energy needs using green renewables.

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

[WatsonT]

62. No that's not true

Coal actually releases far more radioactive material than nuclear.

Hysteria aside nuclear *is* a remarkably clean energy source for it's scale and reliability.

[WatsonT]

95. What exactly is nuclear radiation by the way?

[rdking647]

39. nuke alternatives

how many people has coal mining killed? as opposed to how many nuculear power has killed

[MadHound]

55. Green renewables can provide for all our energy needs,

We just have to have the political and economic will to implement them.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

[rdking647]

92. how much would it cost

and where would we get the money?

[Cetacea]

15. Chernobyl

[rdking647]

41. chenoybyl

was caused by soviet incompetence and poor workmanship rather than nuclear power

[closeupready]

51. And, as industry shills like to tell us, Chernobyl shows the system WORKED!

:sarcasm:

[TheMightyFavog]

75. Not to mention the design of the reactor itself

End of Line.

[WatsonT]

64. The perils inherent to hyrdo-electric:

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

These are fundamental flaws in the science of hydro, not the engineering or management.

:sarcasm:

[CommonSensePLZ]

78. Aww

:'(

[NeedleCast]

16. We Sure Do Love Some Nuclear Hyperbole

[MadHound]

17. We who? You have a mouse in your pocket?

While you may love hyperbole, I'm dealing with facts. Don't believe me? The New Madrid fault zone runs approximately from SE MO, NW TN, on up the Ohio valley. Last time it let go in a large manner, it caused damage all the way over in PA, and rang church bells in New England. Get that picture? Good, now look at this one.
<>

That is a map of commercial nuclear reactor sites(and it doesn't include at least one research reactor that I personally know of). Notice a lot of reactors clustered within a hundred miles of the fault/damage zone? Oh, yeah, and a lot of the underlying rock those reactors sit on is limestone, riddled with caves and sinkholes.

No hyperbole, just facts.

[NeedleCast]

33. Oh I get the picture all right

I understand perfectly well that the anti-nuclear power crowd will jump on every possible incident with the word nuclear in it to go all terra terra terra about the dangers of nuclear power while sticking their fingers in their ears when it's pointed out over and over that nuclear power plants have a truly amazing number of hours operating without incident.

I will grant that there is some level of threat. For me, that level of threat is very reasonable for the gain provided.

[MadHound]

35. Whoops, there it is, you are demonstrating your ignorance again.

". . .nuclear power plants have a truly amazing number of hours operating without incident. "

Actually there isn't a month goes by without a nuclear plant in this country reporting an incident. Whether that incident be an emergency shut down, a release of contaminated water, or radioactive steam, such incidents happen on a regular basis.

The nuclear industry likes to tout its safety record, but the fact of the matter is that they are far from safe. But you get them behind closed doors, talking amongst themselves, and they will admit that the nuclear industry has problems. I know, I worked in the nuclear industry for years, and was present for a number of those most revealing conversations.

But they count on gullible fools like you to keep lapping up the official story, never do any digging, and keep pushing that propaganda, all the while they keep poisoning our earth and water.

[rdking647]

47. how many people in the US has nuclear power killed?

since nukes are so dangerous how many people have bene killed in the US by nukes in teh last 50 years? as opposed to how many have been killed mining coal to run our conventianal plants.

the FACT is nuclear power is a hell of a lot safer.
I wish all our power came from nukes,at least until solar and wind are cost effective

[MadHound]

56. Solar and wind cost less than nukes,

And green renewables now have the capability to provide for all our energy needs.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

As far as nobody dying, educate yourself
<http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/24-3>

[rdking647]

96. show me reliable scientific evidence

not extreme enviroweennie biased claptrap

[MadHound]

19. kick n/t

[pickle juice]

21. What's a nuclear fault?

Talk about hysteria...

[MadHound]

24. It is a typo on my part, and it is too late to go back and correct it.

But hey, way to go on focusing on a typo, and not the real problem.

[hunter]

28. Water and fire and falling debris kills thousands of people...

... and I do hope there are competent people managing the nuclear power plants, but I don't think this is an appropriate time for anti-nuke fear mongering.

[truebrit71]

30. "anti-nuke fear-mongering" when one, possibly two nuclear reactors might go bang...

...because they can't pump water/coolant into them..

No fear there then he? :eyes:

[MadHound]

36. So if now, when we've got cores teetering on the bring of meltdown, isn't a time to be alarmed,

When is a good time?

Those of us who are opposed to nukes have been sounding the alarm for years and decades, yet people like you keep sticking your fingers in your ears going "LALALALALALALA"

Now that another major crisis is looming, you say now is not the time to be alarmed.

Pathetic, just fucking pathetic.

[FBaggins]

44. Hyperbole much?

"Teetering on the brink of meltdown" is a long LONG way from where they've reportedly gotten.

The report is that the reactors are shut down but backup power to one reactor (and it's MOX... oooh... SCARY!) was out and pumps weren't running to keep the core cool. Now there's quite a bit of water in there already. It isn't like ten minutes or ten hours is going to run them out of coolant and the core will melt down.

They've reportedly already fixed the problem, but all they would need to do is get more water there before levels got too low. That isn't exactly an insurmountable task.

The reality is that they are BILLIONS of times closer to a meltdown than they were yesterday... but still a LONG way from "teetering" on the edge of disaster.

[MadHound]

58. The simple fact of the matter is that if they don't have fresh, cool water getting to that core,

They've got major problems. Even a small core for a ten megawatt reactor sees over a hundred gallons an hour evaporate off the pool due to the heat. If they can't get water into the core to replace what is being lost into the atmosphere, they've got some serious problems, and yes, they are teetering.

[FBaggins]

82. And is there a reason to believe that they CAN'T get water to the core

before water levels become a concern? You can't think of any other options?

Even a small core for a ten megawatt reactor sees over a hundred gallons an hour evaporate off the pool due to the heat.

And how many gallons need to be lost before you're "teetering"? Is it a two hundred gallon pool?

[Gravel Democrat]

67. yup we have k+r

60mw x 10= 600

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

[Gravel Democrat]

84. reference

The 8.9-magnitude earthquake that shook Japan early March 11 blew out the cooling systems of two nuclear reactors there. An inability to cool the reactors could cause radiation leaks, and both power plants are "bracing for the worst,” according to government officials.

"At present we have no reports of any radioactive materials or otherwise affecting the surrounding areas," Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan told the press. The malfunctions are occuring at the Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Daiichi power plant near Tokyo and the Tohoku Electric Power Co. facility in Onagawa. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said that all the necessary precautions are being taken to prepare for radiation leaks, including evacuating thousands of residents within a 3-mile radius of the Fukushima facility.

Eleven reactors nearest the quake's epicenter automatically shut down upon sensing vibrations in the early hours of March 11. "Reactors shut themselves down automatically when something called 'ground acceleration' is registered at a certain point, which is usually quite small. It will instantly drop control rods into the core," Professor Tim Albram, a nuclear fuel engineer at the University of Manchester in the U.K., explained to the press.

[rdking647]

38. the irrational nuclear fear

some on the left has reminds me of teh anti muslim fear displayed by the right..
I lived near a nuke plant for years.. never had a worry about it.
as a matter of record could you name the number of people killed in the world by nuclear plants,excluding chernobyl,which I exclude becasue chernobyl was caused more my soviet incompetence and poor workmanship than anything else.

other than chernobyl how many people have been killed in the last 50 years by nuke plants.. as opposed to how many have been killed coal mining to run a convential power plant.

[Shagbark Hickory]

40. One of their nuke plants actually caught on fire (in japan)

nt

[SidDithers]

45. The fire was in the turbine building, not the reactor...nt

Sid

[Shagbark Hickory]

48. Sorry, is that not close enough for you?

Its a good thing there was someone there to put it out. I guess the didn't cut fire fighters out of their budgets in japan.

[WatsonT]

68. Shouldn't make a difference

the reactor is set to handle far higher temperatures than you can get with simple combustion.

[Shagbark Hickory]

81. All it would take is a sustained work stoppage or to cut off water to the cooling towers.

Then kaboom.

[WatsonT]

94. Meltdown =! explosion

and the carbon rods prevent it from reacting, those appear to have been put in place.

[wtmusic]

59. "Teeter on the edge of complete disaster"? Nonsense.

"Nuclear engineer and fellow of the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering Dame Sue Ion said Japan had extremely tight standards when it came to ensuring nuclear power plants were earthquake-resistant.

'Authorities, utilities and reactor vendors ensure that appropriate safety systems are incorporated at the design stage and implemented in construction and operation,' she observed.

Systems automatically shut down when trigger points are reached to allow for relevant safety inspections to take place before restart.

'Japan's nuclear power stations are being shown to be robust against the threat of earthquake: Safety systems have operated as they should.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12711707

[MadHound]

61. And yet apparently they have no new cooling water getting to their core,

And what water is left in the pool is evaporating at what is an alarming rate. If they don't get more water to the core soon, they can kiss their ass goodbye.

I would say that teetering is an apt description.

[wtmusic]

66. The reactor has been shut down.

The control rods are in the core, and it's not generating any heat. Cooling down naturally.

[MadHound]

69. And even in the best of times and ideal circumstances it takes days for a core to cool down

With no new water, and the water at hand being depleted by the minute, it is still a major problem.

[wtmusic]

73. Backup coolling was restored 7 hours ago

"We understand this situation is under control," the analyst said, adding that he understood that a back-up battery power system had been brought online after about an hour and began pumping water back into the cooling system, where the water level had been falling."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/asia/12nuclear.html

[MadHound]

76. Still sounds like a dicey situation,

From your link:

"Civilian power reactors are designed with emergency diesel generators to assure the ability to continue cooling even during a blackout. Many reactors have two, assuring redundancy; some have three, so that if one must be taken out of service for maintenance, the plant can still keep running.

It was not immediately clear how many there are at Fukushima, but the operators reported earlier in the day that they were not working, prompting the evacuation.

snip

that building is designed to be cooled, to keep down steam pressure and leaks. But those pumps require the main sources of power at the plant to function properly.

“If they start melting fuel, the containment integrity is going to the key in terms of what gets out,” Mr. Lochbaum said. “Their focus now has to be on getting back A.C. power” — or the main power supplies for the plant."

Next few hours are crucial.

[wtmusic]

79. It is. Leak possible.

http://twitter.com/Reuters/statuses/46273333649608705

[FBaggins]

89. More than possible at this point.

It's almost assured. They have to do something with the excess pressure or that pressure itself will become a problem.

[Cleita]

70. I live near the nuclear Diablo Canyon plant.

We almost got rid of it, but the Enron energy fleecing of California caused it to be powered up again. It's only built to withstand a 7.5 earthquake. With all these 8+ earthquakes hitting around the world, I'm worried. I wonder that our Republican elected public officials aren't. Also, it's practically at the beach built back a bit into a canyon. Could anything be more stupid especially since we are having tsunami warnings along the coast today due to the Japan earthquake yesterday.

[Junkdrawer]

71. "US Air Force transports coolant to nuclear reactor hit by giant Japan earthquake"....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42025882/?GT1=43001

Kind of a dramatic response to a "non-problem", eh?

Here's the truth: We won't know the truth for years, if ever. Unless things turn REALLY bad. But we will be assured repeatedly that there's no problem.

[Rex]

83. 'Assuring us there is no problem' is the job of govt forces.

They get paid to keep us calm no matter what the truth is.

[FBaggins]

90. Yes... but that doesn't leave any room for it to BE true.

It's one thing to distrust government "forces"... it's another to assume the worst in every situation.

If there's a fire in a forest and the government says that they don't expect it to get out of controll, they could be lying, but it isn't as if fires always get out of control just because the government said it wouldn't.

[Rex]

103. When you have three reactors that could meltdown at anytime

I would say that is not just any 'situation', but it doesn't matter if it is true or not. The govt will always lie to keep the peace.

[Throd]

97. I saw a scary movie in the 70's. Nuclear power is bad!