
Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors - woodpanel
https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
======
neutronicus
The article is mostly correct, but a few corrections from a nuclear engineer:

1\. What he refers to as "moderator rods" are actually control rods. The term
"moderator" refers to a material that is _unlikely_ to absorb neutrons, but
likely to scatter them. This helps lower the average neutron speed inside the
reactor, which actually _increases_ the fission rate. Since water serves this
purpose just fine, most reactors do not have specific "moderator rods",
although BWRs actually run pipes of liquid water through the fuel assemblies
for additional moderation.

2\. BWRs are not run all-rods-out, like he claims. BWRs are generally run with
significant control rod insertion, so that the water stays liquid for a
greater portion of the height of the core.

3\. He doesn't quite explain that the source of the hydrogen is a replacement
reaction where zirconium and water react to create zirconium oxide and
hydrogen gas.

4\. Xenon-135 is a fission product, not produced by neutron activation, and
neutron activation of coolant is nothing to sneer at (the half-life of tritium
is 12.3 years).

~~~
Wientje
for 4. Tritium is a beta emitter. Wherever it ends up when it decays, the
radiation won't get very far.

~~~
weinzierl
Still not good when it ends up in your body.

~~~
mpyne
True, although in fairness it's a fairly weak beta emitter. The 100,000
picocuries of Potassium-40 your body has emits betas that are about 120 times
more energetic, or sometimes emits gamma rays instead.

Probably better to not get exposed to tritium all other things being equal but
you would receive more damage from radioactivity IMO inhaling someone's
cigarette smoke. I suppose this depends on exactly how much tritium is present
in the steam that was vented.

The original engineer also left out the many other radionuclides that are
created that don't break down instantly, but his points about filtering most
contaminants out before they are vented, and their destination of the vast
Pacific Ocean is right on target.

------
benohear
My high school class in Switzerland was chosen for the yearly measurement of
radioactivity in the population. The graphs they showed us as intro were
interesting. Basically they start in the mid-60's and were going down. The
level then flatlined at zero for many years. Then Chernobyl came and was a
small blip something like 5x less than the 60's level.

Turns out a complete meltdown of a civilian reactor a few thousand miles away
matters less than open air explosion of multi-megaton bombs on the other side
of the world, which was the cause for the 60's levels.

Not that I wish nuclear meltdown on anyone, but the above seems to me to
suggest that on a worldwide scale it wouldn't have much of an impact.

~~~
vdbnnss
Thank you for reminding us of how much of a non-event the Chernobyl accident
was for you in Switzerland, a few thousand miles away. While you're at it,
don't forget tell those wimps in Belarus to shut up and stop whining about
this non-event.

~~~
benohear
You're right. For them it was an absolute tragedy. I wasn't implying
otherwise.

But the premise of the OP was some Australians that were freaking out because
of the events in Japan. It's a similar situation.

~~~
lemming
From the comments looks like the OP lives in Japan, hence his family's
concern.

~~~
benohear
Very true! I hadn't read the comments.

------
ck2
In theory we should be more worried about the ash radiation from our coal
plants (which releases a lot more, in an unregulated manner, and makes me
wonder sometimes if it's a trigger for the increase in cancer in
industrialized nations).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)

 _it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much
uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island
incident_

~~~
ugh
That’s because hardly any radioactivity was released into the atmosphere
during the Three Mile Island incident. It was mostly harmless.

~~~
ck2
I think you are missing some documentation

[http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/wing_tmi_ca...](http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/wing_tmi_cancer_map.gif)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't know what the population density is, from your graph, it sure looks
like Three Mile Island prevented a bunch of cancer. (Assuming of course you
want to infer causality from one picture.) Look at all that dark green - those
are areas with 50% less cancer than would be expected.

The wikipedia article suggests the science is very mixed, and there is no
conclusive evidence one way or the other.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_heal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects)

So whatever the effects of TMI were, they are almost certainly small.

~~~
ck2
The red areas almost look like where the wind would carry a radioactive plume.
Why do you believe it would go towards the green area and disperse in a
uniformed way?

------
illumen
The writer is not an expert on earth quakes. Making such a bold claim that
nothing can go wrong is plainly false. Just because they are an expert in one
area, does not mean they are an expert in all areas.

There are already a number of people being treated for radiation poisoning.
They have already admitted that there have been radiation releases above safe
levels.

I feel sorry for the engineers working so hard to fix this, as they face the
largest dangers. They are sacrificing a lot to save other people. As history
tells us, in other nuclear disasters these are the first people to die from
the affects. Some have already died.

A previous earthquake a few years ago caused an explosion in one of the
reactors in Japan. I guess the costs and risks were weighed up - and the risks
ignored. Previously the company CEO resigned because of falsified safety
reports.

The costs of nuclear reactors - even if you don't factor in the costs of these
disasters are higher now than other forms of cleaner energy generation. Let's
use the smarter, more innovative, and safer energy solutions available today.
Let's leave these 50's and 60's era shitty technology behind.

~~~
SeoxyS
_Let's use the smarter, more innovative, and safer energy solutions available
today. Let's leave these 50's and 60's era shitty technology behind._

Oh, and what do you suggest? In the US, for example, we've just about dammed
every river that can be dammed, and solar and wind are too expensive for wide
scale deployments.

The only real alternative we have to the 20% of our energy which comes from
nuclear would be to add to the 45% which comes from coal (or to the 23% from
natural gas.) That would be a disaster, coal plants are far more damaging than
nuclear plants are.

We should be doing the opposite. Replacing our alarmingly high coal energy
usage with nuclear plants, instead. Too bad there's so much propaganda (and
big-coal lobbying) against this. Nuclear is the only practical source of zero-
emission energy for wide scale use.

Personally, I'd much rather live with a couple nuclear incidents than with the
horrors of today's fossile fuel industries.

~~~
brazzy
_solar and wind are too expensive for wide scale deployments._

No, they aren't. And the only reason nuclear is considered "cheap" is that the
costs of accidents and waste disposal are methodically underestimated.

Oh, and another thing: Uranium fuel is a quite limited resource as well...

~~~
SeoxyS
We have 50 years of petroleum left and maybe 100-200 of coal. Compare that to
centuries of Uranium, Plutonium and other radioactive minerals. Also,
emissions are a big deal, too. Nuclear waste is contained and far less
dangerous (when kept properly) than fossile fuel emissions.

~~~
nl
I'm a long way from an opponent of nuclear power, but when you say

 _Nuclear waste is contained and far less dangerous (when kept properly) than
fossile fuel emissions._

I think you might be making the opposite point to what you intend.

You compare the worst case of safety & long term consequences for oil/coal
(ie, the current situation), with the best case ("when kept properly") for
nuclear power.

A better comparison would be to compare the safety coal/oil power _after_
spending the money required to keep nuclear waste safe on cleaning coal/oil
emissions and improving mining safety, or else to compare the worst case in
each scenario.

The worst case for coal/oil is a few thousand dead (from mining) a year, and
bad climate damage. The worst case for nuclear is a few million dead and
regional environmental catastrophe. It's fair to have a discussion about the
probability any disaster happening, but to preclude the possibility undermines
your argument.

To me, nuclear proponents making the case the nuclear is safe if everything
goes well sound a lot like the NASA administrators who Feynman criticized in
the challenger disaster report for not understanding risk.

------
lispm
Wow, such a denial of reality. 'in control'? If anything I saw in the last
hours, the thing is not in control. Diesel generators failed, a building
exploded, core meltdowns going on, restoring of electricity failed, seawater
used for cooling (how were they pumping it and are the pumps powerful enough
to provide cooling over a longer period of time like days). Valves are not
working, measurement of pressure is not possible, there are fears of another
explosion.

Two reactors are still OUT OF CONTROL.

One of them is even using Plutonium in its fuel. German news about that:
[http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/0,1518,750668,00....](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/0,1518,750668,00.html)

Whether the containment will work as designed is unknown.

Fukushima II, the other plant has cooling problems, too.

Now there has been an alarm of higher radiation at the Onagawa plant.

German source: <http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,750637,00.html>

~~~
lispm
The reactor 3 at the first Fukushima plant is not just using Uranium. It uses
MOX fuel. So what the author ('expert???') wrote is already useless, he does
not even know what the reactors are using as fuel.

Japan Today:

[http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/mox-
fuel-...](http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/mox-fuel-loaded-
into-tokyo-electrics-old-fukushima-reactor)

From August last year:

MOX fuel loaded into Tokyo Electric's old Fukushima reactor Sunday 22nd
August, 05:36 AM JST

FUKUSHIMA — Tokyo Electric Power Co loaded plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel
Saturday into a reactor at its nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture in
preparation for the largest Japanese utility’s first plutonium-thermal power
generation.

The No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant would be the third in Japan to
be used for the so-called pluthermal generation, but the only one among the
three to have been subjected to antiaging treatment with 34 years since its
launch. Pluthermal output has already begun at the No. 3 reactor of Kyushu
Electric Power Co’s Genkai plant in Saga Prefecture and the No. 3 reactor of
Shikoku Electric Power Co’s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture.

~~~
neutronicus
Honestly, whether the fuel is UOX or MOX is not particularly relevant at this
point, since the primary differences between those fuels are neutronic, not
thermal, and even there they are qualitatively very similar.

I'm pretty sure the author is not an 'expert', exactly, because he seems
unfamiliar with some of the nuances of BWR operation, but his summary is
generally correct.

~~~
lispm
Sure it is relevant. It means that the level of Plutonium could be higher in
reactor 3 of plant Fukushima 1. This could have relevance in case of a full
meltdown. It is said that then there is a possibility that there is a
different reaction.

~~~
ubernostrum
You're rattling around various fora, throwing out really bad red herrings
(e.g., on reddit you tried to link Niger's average life expectancy to uranium
mining when that likely isn't even a blip on the radar compared to poverty,
malnutrition and lack of health infrastructure). So the onus is on you to
provide strong citations for the claims you're making, rather than just
tossing out BIG SCARY CAPS in a comment and then hand-waving "could have
relevance" and "it is said" when people engage with you.

~~~
lispm
Yeah, it seems to be surprising to you that there are people who did not drink
the nuclear Kool-Aid. Why is that? Has your 2-party system, the influence of
corporations and your declining media made you unable of critical thinking?

~~~
juiceandjuice
I can't speak for the previous poster, but I started 'sipping the nuclear
kool-aid' once I took a nuclear physics class.

Of course, the class was taught over cable TV by fox news anchors funded by
both GE, the DNC and the RNC. That's pretty much how the US got to be a
superpower and stuff.

~~~
lispm
Did not work out too well, given the history of nuclear power plants in the
US. When was the last one built?

The list of cancelled nuclear power plants is impressive:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_United_States)

~~~
CamperBob
Meanwhile, hundreds of coal-fired plants were built in their stead, and those
are currently spewing radioactive waste into the air _in normal operation._

~~~
lispm
Coal-fired plants were not mentioned by me as an alternative or as desirable.

Please stop that.

I see that you are confused when somebody has not the view of the nuclear
industry. You are brainwashed by the corporations. Even thinking that there
are alternatives that are not coal seems to be not possible.

~~~
evgen
It does not matter what you happen to think are good alternatives or are
desirable, because those of us who live in the real world have to deal with
"what is", not "what could/should be." For base electric load in the US you
really have three options: nuclear, coal, gas. One produces a lot of
radioactive toxic waste over the course of normal operations, one produces
lots of CO2, and the other is nuclear.

~~~
lispm
When will the US start with alternatives then? Never? How about some energy
saving???

------
jrockway
Great article. This seems to be a great story in the media because "normal
people" are not as pessimistic as engineers, and see an explosion at a nuclear
reactor to be something that is extremely bad and that could be ending the
world soon. After all, atomic bombs are nuclear, and those are bad, right? But
in reality, while not great, failures are accounted for in the design of the
reactor, and can be managed.

It's sort of like driving your car into a concrete wall on the freeway. There
are buckets of sand there that dissipate the energy; they get destroyed, but
you and the freeway survive. This is the purpose of those sand buckets, to
blow up to prevent other things from blowing up. The outer containment
building is similar; it blows up, but the environment and the reactor core are
still both fine. It would be better if it didn't blow up, but it is manageable
because the engineers designed for that contingency.

Good for selling newspapers, but won't be ending the world just yet.

~~~
jshen
" but the environment and the reactor core are still both fine."

How confident are you in that statement?

------
veidr
As a fellow Tokyo resident, newly-minted quake survivor, and even fellow UFC
aficionado, I found this guy's reprinted letter of explanation quite
comforting. We've been kind of worrying about the nuke meltdown scenarios, and
wondering if maybe we should find some pretext for a quick trip abroad in the
next couple days.

And so I read this post, and nodded, and though 'Hmm, ok, good... OK, sounds
reasonable. Oh, I see, great!'

And then I got to the end, and some little circuit in my brain switched on,
and I realized I felt just a little bit _too_ comforted.

As if this post, from a first-time blogger, might actually be the work product
of some agent of the US pro-nuke consortium that's trying to get clearance
(not to mention indemnification from liability) to build many billions of
dollars worth of new plants in the US. Or, perhaps more plausibly, merely the
comforting words of a family friend trying to reassure people who weren't
really in a position to do much about things in any case. And whose dad works
in the nuke industry, with whatever subconscious bias that might convey.

But hey, fuck it: taking that article at face value will make it easier to
sleep tonight, so until morning at least I think I'll try to do that. So
thanks for posting it!

~~~
radu_floricica
There is a reason I feel much relieved after reading this. Pretty much
everything I've read so far implied that once there is a meltdown, all bets
are off. We'll have radioactive material boiling in open air, and all the
"good" things that come with it. Which sounded very suspicious to me... I
mean, isn't containment designed to prevent exactly that? Once the fuel melts,
it just makes a hole on the bottom of the containment and pools on the floor?
So for me, the money shot was here:

> For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the
> pressure vessel (the second containment), which is filled with graphite, all
> inside the third containment. This is the so-called “core catcher”. If the
> core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will
> catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that
> the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.

edit: Plus reading about INES, there was a British plant that had 5 (five)
level 4 incidents in 25 years, and a partial core meltdown at a French plant.
And many more.

~~~
illumin8
Except that "Fukushima Dai-ichi No.1 Reactor does not have a concrete
containment dome. This reactor was built before the now familiar reinforced
concrete dome became mandatory for most reactors. Instead, the reactor has a
much smaller steel containment vessel around the reactor vessel."

This was from a Slashdot comment, so I trust it about equally to a newly
minted blog with only a single post:
[http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2033910&cid=35463272](http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2033910&cid=35463272)

Someone with more knowledge of nuclear power history could surely cross
reference the dates here for us and confirm/deny the existence of the 3rd
containment layer:

Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1

\- 439 MWe BWR, 1971

\- Automatically shut down

\- Water level decreasing

\- Pressure release implemented

\- Explosion observed

\- Containment believed intact

\- Seawater injection has started

\- Radiation levels did not rise after explosion

Unit 2

\- 760 MWe BWR, 1974

\- Automatically shut down

\- Water level lower but steady

\- Preparations for pressure release

Unit 3

\- 760 MWe BWR, 1976

\- Automatically shut down

\- Preparations for pressure release

Unit 4

\- 760 MWe BWR, 1978

\- Shut for periodic inspection

Unit 5

\- 760 MWe BWR, 1978

\- Shut for periodic inspection

Unit 6

\- 1067 MWe BWR, 1979

\- Shut for periodic inspection

------
miles
Grateful for the explanation, but the author's bias is questionable at best.
He suggests,

 _"If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and
consult the following websites"_

and goes on to list 3 nuclear lobbying websites.

So, ignore the independent media and get all of your information from pro-
nuclear lobbies?

More: [https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-
not-w...](https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-
about-japans-nuclear-reactors/#comment-93)

~~~
samlevine
>So, ignore the independent media and get all of your information from pro-
nuclear lobbies?

The msm usually doesn't have any idea what they're talking about when they
report on computer related issues, why do you expect them to be any better
when it comes to nuclear power?

~~~
kgarten
He is not talking about msm but independent media. Mentioning Lobby groups as
good information source discredits in my opinion the complete write-up. Also
does the mentioning of "phd. scientist" ...

So according to your analogy: Don't listen to independent tech news, just
listen to what Gruber tells you about Apple ;)

------
kgarten
I'm shocked, how can such a lobbyist piece be high-rated at Hacker News. I
though the community would be more critical towards news in general.

There are several factual errors (so much I don't know where to start), just
check the press releases from TEPCO, the public statements of the Japanese
Government and other public available information (e.g.
[http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-
db/en/trouble/individ/power/j/j2...](http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-
db/en/trouble/individ/power/j/j20060526/news.html) )

The author does not know what he is talking about, his phD. won't help him
there. (Everybody clear in their mind should wonder why smb. would start a
piece with "phD. Scientist" I'm working in academia and I never mentioned my
degree in any post here or elsewhere, because I want that my arguments
convince and not my degree) It's the first blog-post of smb. who's linking
just to nuclear energy lobbyist pages (telling you to prefer them over
"standard media") and everybody starts up-voting the piece and down-voting
negative and critical comments?

I thought hacker news was better.

~~~
innes
"lobbyist" doesn't mean 'I disagree with this'. Using it as such is just low-
grade conspiracy-theorising.

~~~
kgarten
As I said, most information in the article is plain wrong. Starting with the
3rd compartment, over the type of nuclear material used to the safety measures
of the company that owns the plant, etc.

Would you believe me, when I told you, "Disregard regular tech news, just
listen to what Steve Jobs and Gruber tell you about Apple?"

------
CWuestefeld
I suppose that my fears for this particular situation are mostly allayed. But
I think that's only the tip of the iceberg.

In the face of the world's need for energy, nuclear power is the only viable
option that is available today. I wonder how much this incident is going to
weigh against using that option?

The power plants in operation today use technology that's quite obsolete. The
design of the older plants is an historical accident. Because of the war-
driven necessity of developing nuclear technology for weapons, the
understanding of the technology that informed the currently-operational
reactors was largely bomb-centric. But we know better today, there exists
designs for reactors that are orders of magnitude safer, both in terms of
operational dangers as well as its waste byproducts.

I'm afraid that sound-byte driven media and activists who aren't willing to
evaluate newer ideas will cause such prejudice that newer, better technology
will never see the light of day, and thus we'll see worse environmental
problems (or economic problems) because our current energy problems can't be
fixed otherwise.

~~~
ANH
> ...nuclear power is the only viable option that is available today...

Nuclear power in itself is unlikely to solve our energy problems. It is only a
part of the solution. We will not be able to supply the world with enough
energy using nuclear power alone given the length of time it takes to design,
approve, build, and certify a nuclear power station.

The Sun is _by far_ our greatest source of energy.

Have a look at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_cons...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption)

~~~
asharp
You'd be surprised at how quickly people can get things done if their lives
are on the line.

We have more then enough thorium in the world to deal with the world's power
demands (It's about as common as lead), we have much safer reactor designs
created and tested, and we have thorium designs created and tested. It's just
that there is a lot of politics and public opinion is not for nuclear power,
it is very much for "green" power, which makes it not politically viable to
create the number of nuclear plants needed supplant say coal/oil/gas fired
power stations as our main supplier of baseload power.

The major problem with solar is that the sun goes down half of the day, there
isn't any viable means to move power halfway across the world and there isn't
any viable means to store anywhere near the amount of energy that is required
to power a civilised country overnight.

------
po
Strange... I didn't see this story on the new page and submitted after you and
it posted a new version instead of auto-voting for yours. I didn't think HN
would do that. Going to go delete that version now…

This is the most coherent description of the issues and events that I've read
(and I've read a few). I learned a lot about BWR nuclear plants.

Some people here in Tokyo are starting to get very nervous and mostly that
comes because nuclear power is so damn confusing. Understanding it can help
you keep your wits. They are showing documentaries on Japanese TV about the
cause of the tsunami right now but I think they should be showing "Nuclear
Power 101" instead.

 _Edit:_ Another thing that is causing a lot of confusion is that there are
two power plants that were affected (daiichi and daini) and each plant has
multiple reactors. They were both operated by TEPCO as well so the press
releases are coming from the same place. Keeping track of all of them is a bit
confusing. This article is mostly about the most serious problem which is
reactor one at daiichi.

~~~
woodpanel
Staying cool on the other side of the globe is far easier than living right
next to it. So kudos!

It is hard to understand the technology behind it. Harder than just burst into
cunfusion and condemning things. Every time I tried to get to know more about
how nuclear reactors work, the more I found out, the more it calmed me down.

------
weinzierl
He says that even in the case of a total meltdown (which hopefully will not
happen in Fukushima) we will be save because everything will be contained in
the third containment.

What I don't get is how cooling is supposed to happen in this case. I think
they still would have to pump sea water into the containment which would then
get contaminated not only by neutron activation but also with Uranium, Cesium,
Iodine etc.

What happens to the seawater then: Will it be released into the environment?
Is it in liquid form or will it be released as steam?

~~~
ars
You filter out the other elements, and release the water.

Water pretty much can't get radioactive. (For more than a few minutes.)

The longest radioactive oxygen you can make in a reactor has a half life of 26
seconds.

For hydrogen, deuterium is not radioactive, and tritium can't be made in a
light water reactor.

So water effectively can't get radioactive.

~~~
waterlesscloud
And they have these filters right there, handy and ready to use just in case
they started pumping in sea water?

~~~
Wientje
Since they asked the prime minister for permission to pump sea water, I'm
guessing that it was an option all along i.e. they have the facilities to do
just a thing. The whole defence in depth concept relies on having a bazilion
emergency options.

------
ars
Excellent writeup.

I've been telling people this all day, but it's great to have a PhD confirm
it.

BTW, with Chernobyl the control rods were not able to be inserted all the way,
which is one of the main reasons it was so bad - the chain reaction never
stopped, and the heat just kept building up.

~~~
secretasiandan
While the article was a decent read, he is not an expert in this field. His
work is in Supply Chain/Management

[http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-
researchers-...](http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-researchers-
and-staff/oehmen-josef)

Where does he get his expertise in nuclear reactors? According to the article,
his father.

"He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s
nuclear industry"

~~~
woodpanel
I agree, his expertise is not fully covering this field. But I think he's
still far better informed than most voices we get to hear these days.

In Germany it took green-activists a couple of hours to organize nationwide
protests. Politicians with no knowledge about physics beyond spelling
"meltdown" are immediatly taking advantage of this situation.

~~~
saulrh
On the one hand, our fear responses undoubtedly helped us survive when we had
to worry about running away from big things with teeth. On the other hand, it
also means that uninformed, power-hungry idiots like to boost their career by
destroying things that would make life better for everybody.

~~~
woodpanel
It's true. This fear is what created the "Defense of Depth" in the first place
(It may have been the absence of it, or the none-allowance of it, that enabled
tchernobyl).

The ability to run when alerted by others seems to be a evolutionary proven
advantage.

The ability to condemn those false intended alerters I think will pay back as
an advantage too.

------
locusm
Ive asked my Nuclear Fusion expert mate on this article and others, waiting to
hear back and Ill post his response. He is currently working at the Department
of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological engineering at a US University, so I
figure he'll know a thing or two.

------
hammock
Here's TLDR version: (1) the steam released has radioactivity lasting on the
order of seconds, (2) if/when meltdown occurs, cesium/iodine radionuclides can
exist in the steam but are apparently blown out to sea away from Japan, and
(3) with the exception of controlled steam releases, a steel containment
surrounding the core & related components will absolutely contain 100% of
worst-case scenarios, meltdowns, etc.

At least that's how I understood it. Not an expert so I have no idea how much
of it is true or not.

------
artsrc
I am thinking about California's nuclear power plants. I figure that we will
learn reasonable and effective ways to make them safer, perhaps ensure the
diesel back generators are safe from a Tsunami. And this will cost money that
we should spend. It is not like the California budget is swimming with money.

People talked about how strong this earthquake was, and it was strong, but the
epicenter missed the power plants by quite a distance. Then we will get a
surprise when a much smaller quake his one much worse.

------
adlep
This is a nice article, however: Breaking News: "U.S. Seventh Fleet moves
ships, planes away from quake-hit Japanese nuclear plant after discovering
low-level radioactive contamination"

I suggest you start worrying. More info here:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html>

------
radu_floricica
It was very interesting to read the wikipedia page for INES. Turns out we
never heard about the most serious incidents except Cernobyl
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sca...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#INES_Level_4:_Accident_with_local_consequences)

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Interesting also that in the INES pdf on that site, the requirement for INES4
is at least one death from radiation. Perhaps the declaration of INES level
four was in error, or the requirement is not strict. Another interesting link
just found:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accide...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents)

~~~
radu_floricica
There is one confirmed death (a crane operator, but I didn't find any clear
cause of death) and several injuries.

~~~
Wientje
As he is already dead, it won't be radiation that killed him. Radiation
poisoning needs days to do its ugly work. For the person to die within hours,
the containment must have failed to allow sufficient radiation out. Since this
has not happened, the person in question hasn't died from radiation.

------
catfish
The light from the Sun that strikes this planet, (the largest fusion based
nuclear reactor in the Solar System) produces more energy in one day than all
the nuclear, oil, or coal based power plants on the planet.

One has to wonder why governments insist on building poisonous, fragile,
radioactive generators on earth, when we can safely harness solar, wind, and
wave energies without such horrifying risk.

Will it be the lack of common sense that is cited as the primary downfall of
civilization when we are long gone, due to our less than intelligent decisions
about energy? Who among us wishes to have children play along the Gulf coast
of the United States this summer? Oil illness anyone? Or along the coast of
Northern Japan for the next 25,000 years or so...

Does anyone seriously believe that a "shoot for the moon" style campaign like
the one we held to create nuclear power plants, would not result in workable
alternative energy programs?

One point is certain. Earthquakes WILL continue to happen.

One other point is certain. Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. You can
only minimize the chance of catastrophic failure. Not eliminate it. And once
the genie is out of the containment vessel, the penalty last 25,000+ years.

No amount of carefully considered analysis changes the science of this issue.
It's time to give alternative energy solutions the same level of serious
treatment we have lent to coal and nuclear systems or prepare for a future
where meltdowns and frantic efforts to prevent them are more common place.

A future where more than a few locations become permanent exclusion zones for
thousands of years. A future for your children where the increased incidence
of cancer and mutation is part of every day living.

Or not if we come to our senses and throw every effort into fully developing
alternate energy systems. We have a fusion reactor handy just 93 million miles
away with billions of years of energy to come. Lets use it.

~~~
bzbarsky
The reason people build power stations is that density of energy matters, not
just quantity.

Sure, we can replace our current energy sources with solar + wind + wave.

What fraction of coastline needs to be covered with wave-driven generators,
and what fraction of Earth's land area needs to be covered with solar or wind
farms to get to our current energy generation levels? Last I saw the numbers
for the US they weren't pretty.

Just to run the numbers for the US, average insolation for the Earth is
250W/m^2 according to
<[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation>).
That's for the whole spectrum, not just whatever solar cells can actually use.

The land area of the US according to
<[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>);
is a shade under 1e13m^2. That gives us a total of about 2.5e15W for solar
power for the continental US, assuming your solar cells are amazing and have
100% efficiency across the full electromagnetic spectrum (as in, you've done
an "Apollo Program" for solar cells and had amazing results).

Energy consumption in the US 5 years ago was about 29e15PWh/year, so about
3.3e12W.

So we'd need to entirely cover about .13% of the land area of the US in solar
cells to get the amount of power we were using 5 years ago. We're using more
now, of course.

That's about the area of Connecticut.

Now what's the useful life of solar cells? How high can we sensible expect to
get it? How do we plan to handle the fact that the generation is ... very
variable? How close to 100% efficiency do we think we can actually get solar
cells? How noxious is the production process for these solar cells you'll have
to be cranking out continuously to replace the failing ones, and where do you
plan to locate it?

> Does anyone seriously believe that a "shoot for the moon" > style campaign
> like the one we held to create nuclear > power plants, would not result in
> workable alternative > energy programs?

Yes. I don't think such a campaign would get us to the point where we could
use any combination of wind, solar, wave for baseline power.

> Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous.

So are solar cell production facilities. So is swimming, for that matter; the
question is one of probabilities.

> the penalty last 25,000+ years.

How long does the "penalty" for a serious chemical spill last?

> No amount of carefully considered analysis changes the > science of this
> issue.

This much we agree on. ;)

~~~
catfish
2/3rds of the earth is covered with water, Nothing would prevent putting solar
on the oceans surface. And why would we cover land with panels, when we have
rooftops that cover triple the area required to generate the base line you
cite? Already, flexible rooftop material exist that serves a dual purpose of
protecting the home, and producing power.

Every problem you cite can be solved readily. Put even a 100th of the
resources expended to develop nuclear energy into alternate energies and we
can be rid of the suicidal methodology of nuclear energy on the planets
surface. Why anyone would defend something as poisonous as nuclear energy is
beyond understanding. It is a continuous threat to the future of the species
and supported only by those who stand to profit greatly from its deployment.

I don't think you actually understand the science at all.

~~~
jerf
"Every problem you cite can be solved readily."

... by the simple technique of ignoring our limited resources and engineering
skill, yes, sure. Solving them for _real_ is somewhat more challenging. Your
ideas are so far-out (a polite way of saying "stupid") that based on
experience an explanation of why they won't work will simply be ignored by
you. You are off by orders of magnitude, plural.

------
fxj
25 years after chernobyl, we still find contaminated material in germany. e.g.
mushrooms and wild boar. so i would be VERY carful with such a bold statement
as in the linked article.

[http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/langfristige-folgen-von-
ts...](http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/langfristige-folgen-von-tschernobyl-
strahlende-pilze-belastete-schweine-1.1012078)

"And the willingness to eat contaminated venison has dropped obviously, more
and more hunters and forest owners can check the meat of wild boars - and
compensation from the Federal Ministry of Environment, if they can not eat the
contaminated venison because of the large cesium-137 content or sell.

€ 424 650 paid by the Federal Ministry of Environment last year for it. In the
first half of 2010, the amount of compensation was 130,000 euros. 2008 there
were 380,000 euros and 104,000 euros in 2007."

~~~
VMG
Thats when different radioactive material than in this case in much higher
amounts was lifted to high altitudes, which also didn't happen here.

I'd be very careful to compare this incident with Chernobyl

~~~
fxj
FTA: "Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All
radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very
small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on
top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up
smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine
isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again."

And my main point is not that i want to set the japanese accident on the same
level as chernobyl, but more to make clear that nobody expected such a strong
contamination after 25 years thousands of miles away from the center of
explosion. World is not behaving linearly, even though some people want us to
believe it does.

------
vog
This is a very well-written article. In the end, the author provides a nice
collection of links to usable resources.

 _If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and
consult the following websites:

[http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear...](http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html)

[http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-
earthqua...](http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/)

[http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-
nuclea...](http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-
power-stations-in-japan/) _

~~~
drtse4
Lobbist groups? [https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-
not-w...](https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-
about-japans-nuclear-reactors/#comment-93)

~~~
vog
Ouch, I should have checked those resources more carefully.

------
ChuckMcM
I'll add this here as well: a diagram of how these reactors are built is in
this book:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=y20F8Yt6UcMC&pg=PA34...](http://books.google.com/books?id=y20F8Yt6UcMC&pg=PA34&dq=general+electric+reactor+design&hl=en&ei=e5B-TbzOOI76swODysyTBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=general%20electric%20reactor%20design&f=false)

Data folks, data.

------
illumin8
If anyone wants to read a much more thorough technical analysis of all the
reactors at Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, as well as a great analysis
of what has happened, I found this page has some great info:

[http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear...](http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html)

------
mrleinad
Since the author seems so certain that the third containment shell would hold
the meltdown safely, and explosions keep happening: Can someone answer me why
won't they just allow it to melt down, so they can clean up the rest and get
the whole nuclear plant back online? Is it just an economical reason? Or is
there any other risk?

------
jamesaguilar
This is not completely relevant to the current topic, but I was wondering if
any video exists of the inside of a nuclear reactor. What does it look like
when it's running? A brief search on Youtube could not locate anything.

~~~
harry
dunno about actual run-of-the-mill daily cycle but I've seen the reactor at
K-State run a couple-dollar pulse. It looked about like this:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgNwtepP-6M>

For the day to day operation it just looked like a big pool of distilled water
with a ton of pipes running around in it.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
The Cherenkov radiation in that video is worth a watch if you haven't seen it
before. Apparently the water contains the radiation. The effect is from the
electrons passing through the water faster than the speed of light could be in
the water.

------
kgarten
interesting: the site moved, now the commentary section is turned off
(wondering why). "The article is mostly correct ..." and "In theory we should
be more worried about the ash radiation from our coal plants ..." are still
the highest rated comments :(

Hoping for the best for my friends in Tokyo and the rest of Japan.

------
borism
good comment from there:

 _I wonder how the news that two reactors are in partial meltdown, six out of
ten are without any cooling and in the japanese prefecture of Miyagi Sunday
radiation levels 400 times above normal have been measured fit in your
“analysis” that the situation is now under control._

do people really need to jump to conclusions as the situation is still in
development?

~~~
gaius
Logarithmic scales tho', innit. Is 400x actually significant?

Remember at Three Mile Island everyone got a dose of radiation that you'd get
going to the dentist, and that's considered to be a "disaster".

~~~
Wientje
my guess: 400 times the daily dose is what you would get from natural
radiation in a year. This amounts to about 2 milli Sievert depending on where
you live. Articifial radiation of which 95% comes from medical scans is also
about 2 mSv.

So the dose recieved is the same as the average person gets a year in medical
scans. So those people in the area shouldn't have a scan next year.

The negative effects on health from these levels of radiation are in increased
risk of cancer.

To suffer from direct radiation poisoning, the those would have to be many
orders stronger. In Chernobyl, this happened to the firefighters on site
without protective clothing and an exposed and active core.

All in all, the risks for the population so far a very minimal apart from the
increased risk of cancer.

------
stewbrew
i like it when scientists say "the situation is under control" after the roof
was bombed off.

~~~
vog
You should have read the article which explains why this explosion wasn't
nearly as dangerous as it seemed to be.

~~~
adlep
And you should read this:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html>

If the US Navy is fleeing for cover 60 miles away from the reactors, the
situation is SERIOUS.

~~~
LaGrange
While I'm not really calmed by the original article ("my father has nuclear
experience"), I'd suggest that it may be just a case of them not being really
needed in the area, and moving just in case.

------
Kilimanjaro
With all that coastline Japan should be investing more in tidal power
generation and forget once and for all about nuclear power, too high the risk
for earthquakes and tsunamis happening again even at worse scale.

~~~
ugh
Can tidal power equipment survive a tsunami, though? Japan needs a stable
energy supply – if only because they can’t just import power from one of their
neighbors in a pinch (like, for example, most European countries can). I heard
today that even wind turbines are not ideal for Japan because typhoons are
common.

Japan is in a pretty unique position – it’s certainly understandable why
nuclear power is very popular there.

~~~
Kilimanjaro
Earthquake destroys nuclear plant: thousands killed.

Tsunami destroys tidal power plant: none killed.

You are the PM of Japan, you make the call.

~~~
PaulHoule
Actually, hydroelectric plant failures can cause 100+ kilodeaths. In terms of
prompt fatalities, hydroelectricity is by far the deadliest power source.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Am I right in thinking that your figure is for inland hydroelectric power
plants, not Tidal power generators?

