
Highest radiation reading since March 2011 detected at Fukushima No. 1 reactor - Sami_Lehtinen
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/03/national/fukushima-radiation-level-highest-since-march-11/#.WJYrBrYrLMV
======
jonathankeith
Some important distinctions of the statements made in this article have been
published by the Safecast team, who have been independently measuring
radiation levels in this area for years: [http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-
radiation-levels-at-fuku...](http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-radiation-
levels-at-fukushima-daiichi-are-not-rising/)

~~~
ChuckMcM
The Safecast article is much clearer (and certainly less frightening).

As an engineer it's fascinating to me to see what sort of problems a failed
reactor bring to table. One of the reasons all of this is new R&D is because
its only the second major event in history. Given the relatively small volume
of the fuel mass I have always wondered if there might be a way to build a
coring drill that could be used to separate from the main mass a useful amount
of material, which could then be put into a fairly conventional cask for
transport to a secure storage / disposal facility.

For example there has been a lot of study of the 'elephant's foot' which is
the column of fuel that froze once it became subcritical underneath the
reactor at Chernobyl. Could you repeatedly core it with a system to remove a
few 10's of kilos with each core? What about a system that cut basically puck
side nodules that you then put into the cask? There doesn't seem to be a lot
of papers on how you might achieve this sort of disassembly sadly.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
My understanding was that the radiation was too intense to allow machinery to
operate.

Beyond a certain intensity no non-sci-fi technology works reliably. Not only
are electronics fried, but metals and ceramics literally fall apart. And
humans die in seconds, never mind minutes.

So unfortunately there are one or two problems to be worked out before corium
engineering can become a thing.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Radiation doesn't prevent machinery from operating it can prevent electronics
from operating. A lot of the existing tools for moving around highly
radioactive things are hydraulically activated mechanisms. The other issue is
with the heat generated, which if it is too high will weaken structures and
potentially trigger exothermic reactions (fires) which would not have started
otherwise. There are a number of good articles on the machinery used in fuel
reprocessing which can deal with this level of radiation.

~~~
azernik
Radiation can indeed cause machinery to stop operating - high-energy particles
hitting metals, for example, will cause atomic displacement and change the
properties (usually hardness and brittleness). Materials used in reactors
usually have to be carefully chosen to function in the face of this continuous
damage.

~~~
ChuckMcM
True, but by that same logic we can state that water can make machinery to
stop operating by oxidizing the iron in it into rust :-)

That is very much unlike semiconductors which are particularly susceptible to
high radiation as it damages the silicon crystal structure and can change the
doping concentrations pretty much instantly if you aren't careful.

I certainly would not disagree with the statement that one needs to also pick
your materials carefully though.

------
std_throwaway
Inside the reactor building where it belongs, so nobody is in danger outside
of the reactor building. Headline could be clearer.

~~~
Filligree
And at a location which was previously too dangerous to approach.

------
bootload
_“Confirming the conditions inside the reactor is a first step toward
decommissioning,”_

Going to be a very long time before this happens. How long will this take?
30-50 years? Longer? Another recent post (no new facts):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13564303](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13564303)

------
myrandomcomment
I fail to understand the need to "clean this up". Figure out a sphere around
the site that is safe to work in. Dig it out and incase everything in and be
done with it. Sucks to loose the area but much simpler. Heck, turn the site
into a nuclear dump site. Yes you have to monitor for leaks, etc. No it's not
an ideal site geology wise. You can engineer around that.

Yes, I understand physics and engineering and earthquakes (and spent years in
Japan). I am trying to be practical.

~~~
21
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of dirt/concrete/steel needed to
encase any meaningful area.

~~~
tptacek
Does he? That's part of how Chernobyl was mitigated.

~~~
myrandomcomment
Exactly, but I was down voted for asking a rational question.

People you do not have to agree but there is no reason to down vote a question
that is clearly not a troll!

Oh, they poured 16200 cubic meters of concrete for a project in L.A. in 2014
and that was just the foundation.

China poured 6.6 gigtons 2011-2014.

To the person that down voted me, this is just an engineering issue. Period.
Sorry you do not understand that.

------
smb06
> a margin of error of plus or minus 30 percent

Seriously? 30 percent?

------
dang
Url changed from
[https://sputniknews.com/science/201702041050336701-unimagina...](https://sputniknews.com/science/201702041050336701-unimaginable-
fukushima-reactor-radiation-levels/), which points to this.

