
Dramatic escalation in Japan (Fukushima Nuke Plant) - Element_
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html
======
jedsmith
The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very
incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar
reputation when it comes to telling the truth[1], and a culture programmed to
downplay very bad things. It has really pained me to see people rush to
believe that everything is fine.

Conclusions at any stage of this crisis have been premature, but HN seems to
want a heavy dose of finality to a crisis that isn't even over yet. Apparently
people don't want it to be a big deal, but it's slowly turning into a big
deal. It just is. Instead of big essays and conclusions about how the powers-
that-be have it under control complete with inaccurate depictions of how a
reactor works, why don't we focus on facts?

With that in mind, we do not know how bad it is. Anyone who says they do is
lying to you. It isn't over, and it is a basic fact of logic that we will not
be able to reflect on how bad this is or was until it is _over_.

At the risk of a neener-neener I told you so, I presented some of this
viewpoint[2] on the self-aggrandizing risk management Ph.D.'s _everything's
fine_ piece, but my viewpoint was drowned out by people wanting to rush to a
conclusion so they can put the crisis out of sight and out of mind.

[1]:
[http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.s...](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.scandal/index.html)

[2]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305>

~~~
forensic
Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is
that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved.

It's inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that
extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place.

The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction's main emphasis
must be on handling all possible contingencies... right?

If Fukushima does end up being a "Big Deal" that is going to forcibly shift
the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece
of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world.

The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary
that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that's
just reality.

I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now
it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly
underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh
reality of nuclear related deaths then... that's just how it will have to be.
I'll have to eat my hat. I'm not looking forward to it.

In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not
be an issue that threatens human life.

~~~
gnosis
_"Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types
is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved."_

That reminds me of all the bragging about how the Titanic was "virtually
unsinkable".

~~~
forensic
I thought we had learned better. Apparently not.

~~~
sp332
Hm, what are we supposed to learn? That everything might go badly? How can we
apply that lesson to nuke reactors? By my count, 8 levels of failsafes have
failed. How many more do you want? Reminds me of a Futurama episode where an
oil tanker with 1,000 hulls crashes and spills. Fry exclaims, "Oh, if only
we'd had the foresight to use 1,001 hulls, this would never have happened!"

~~~
forensic
Does nature just keep jacking up the pressure to beat every security measure?
Of course not. Nature doesn't do arms races.

Nature's effect is finite and measurable... earthquakes are easily predictable
in the long term... the terrible cost of radiation leak is easily predictable.

Like most other human efforts, the goal posts are pretty clear. Make nuke
plants stronger than the strongest that nature is capable of producing.

A tsunami + earthquake in japan is not a surprise to anyone.

What is a surprise is that the people running the reactor consider it a
surprise.

~~~
sp332
The reactor was designed to withstand an 8.2 quake - very, very strong. It
withstood an 8.9 quake with no damage! That's the 7th strongest quake ever
recorded, and 700% of the rated strength! The tsunami physically washed away
the generators, but the battery backup was sufficient for new generators to be
trucked in. (The new generators could not connect to the old water pumps, but
that's not the fault of the plant's designers.)

~~~
OpieCunningham
_That's the 7th strongest quake ever recorded_

I wonder where "8.2" came from in the engineering spec. and whether shooting
for the ability to withstand a quake somewhere in the neighborhood of, say,
the 10th largest is the right target. Maybe "the largest + 200%" is a better
place to start? Of course, it costs more money.

 _but that's not the fault of the plant's designers_

But it is a totally avoidable error. Not the plant's designers error, but a
human error nonetheless. Why are we limiting our concerns over human error to
just the people responsible for the original design? Surely there were
organizations/contractors involved in developing replacement generators.
Surely there are current plant safety and maintenance directors. Surely there
is a complete nuclear regulatory agency.

~~~
eru
Perhaps when they built it (before the 1971, when the first criticality was
reached) 8.2 was the `largest + 200%'? Does anybody have more data?

~~~
sp332
In 1963, only 3 quakes had been recorded bigger than this one.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes#Largest_ear...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude)
(as SupremumLimit pointed out, analysis upgraded the quake to 9.0)

------
pessimist
Turns out the optimistic reports upvoted by hacker news were polyannish. There
appear to be 2 borderline catastrophes right now -

1\. In reactor 4 spent fuel rods are burning and radioactivity is being freely
vented in to the air. NONE of the optimistic reports suggested this
possibility but I see a prophetic article at
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15fuel.html>.

2\. Reactor 2 has had an explosion that has damaged the core containment
structure - something we were assured would not happen.

Why were engineers so optimistic, while the ground reality is so much worse?
Probably the complexity of the system escapes us and look at small parts of
the issue and assume they are under control. In reality many things are
interacting and the combination can overwhelm defences. For eg. as water is
being routed to reactors 1, 2 and 3 to prevent meltdowns, the spent fuel rods
are overheating.

Hubris strikes again.

~~~
gnosis
_"Turns out the optimistic reports upvoted by hacker news were polyannish."_

There are way too many people on here who've been drinking too much of the
radioactive koolaid doled out by the nuclear industry.

The general consensus here tends to be that nuclear power is wonderful and
amazingly safe.

Well, we're seeing them being proven wrong yet again. How much more proof are
they going to need? How many more nuclear disasters is it going to take?

~~~
mistermann
> how many more nuclear disasters is it going to take?

Indeed....please provide us with the list of nuclear disasters, it should be
an easy exercise judging by the tone of confidence in your post. Just for fun,
throw in some stats on deaths per kwh of electrcity.

PREDICTION: you will not respond to this, because there have been no nuclear
disasters. And no one disputes that in practice, nuclear is the safest form of
power statistically. If you want to assert that nuclear power is incredibly
powerful and dangerous, that is one thing, but trying to pass off _potential_
disaster as reality, is a but disingenuous.

~~~
gnosis
_"Just for fun, throw in some stats on deaths per kwh of electrcity."_

How many kwh of electricity is your life worth?

How many kwh or electricity are the nearly 1 million people who died as a
result of the Chernobyl disaster worth? [1]

And I'd love to hear you show me a list of solar array or wind farm accidents
that prove nuclear power is safer than either.

If Chernobyl or the Fukushima plants were solar arrays or wind farms, how much
environmental damage and cost in human suffering would there have been were
they to have been destroyed?

I'm looking forward to hearing you sing about how nuclear is the "safest form
of power statistically" if the radioactive cloud from Fukushima ever winds up
floating over your home town.

\---

[1] _"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to
radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor,
finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences"_

<http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html>

~~~
dmm
Solar array and wind farms kill people too. The by-products of mining and
industrial production are often dangerous and result in disease. Solar cells
in particular require lots of energy to create.

Is your home off the grid? Have you really considered the compromises that
have to be made to live entirely(electric, heating, cooling, transport) from
wind and solar? It's not easy, it demands changes to all aspects of ones
lifestyle and has a significant price.

~~~
gnosis
_"Solar array and wind farms kill people too."_

Just how many people do they kill?

You got any stats on that?

 _"The by-products of mining and industrial production are often dangerous and
result in disease"_

How does that compare to the hazards of mining radioactive ore and the hazards
from storing and transporting nuclear waste?

 _"Have you really considered the compromises that have to be made to live
entirely(electric, heating, cooling, transport) from wind and solar?"_

These compromises aren't necessarily all bad. For instance, if the impact to
transport means that we'll have to live on goods made locally and not be able
to commute as far to work, that could make for stronger, more pleasant, and
more sustainable communities and economic systems.

 _"It's not easy, it demands changes to all aspects of ones lifestyle and has
a significant price."_

Does that price approach dying of radiation poisoning from a Chernobyl-style
disaster? Or how about having your children be born with all sorts of
mutations caused by radiation? Or of poisoning the environment with nuclear
waste?

~~~
Natsu
> For instance, if the impact to transport means that we'll have to live on
> goods made locally and not be able to commute as far to work, that could
> make for stronger, more pleasant, and more sustainable communities and
> economic systems.

Good luck getting the rare earths from China for all those green technologies
if you have to get them from local sources. The one big US mine was shutdown.
The reason?

"In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of
wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying
radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake."

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine>

But it's okay because, currently, we get all those rare elements from China,
where you don't hear about the pollution and accidents. Of course, China is
saying that they don't want to share with everyone else any more, so that may
change soon.

~~~
gnosis
I'd like to know just how many tons of rare earths we have to import from
China to run wind farms.

And why couldn't solar panels be developed without them?

Why not put a few tens or hundreds of billions (a tiny fraction compared to
TARP or how much the US spends on the military) in to research in to these
technologies to make them less dependent on rare earths?

But, as for the availability of rare earths outside China:

 _"As China slashes exports of rare earth elements, U.S. mine digs for more"

"Molycorp Inc., which owns the open mine, plans to dig out about 40,000 tons
of dirt a year by 2014, up 1,200% from the current rate of about 3,000 tons.

The Colorado company is boosting production to meet an insatiable global
appetite for rare earth elements..

The mine, about 16 miles from the Nevada border, has one of the world's
largest deposits of rare earth elements outside Asia..

The company is spending more than $500 million to modernize and rebuild the
2,200-acre facility. The project is expected to create hundreds of permanent
jobs and eventually produce rare earths at cheaper rates than mines in
China."_

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rare-
earth-20110220,0,...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rare-
earth-20110220,0,4161956.story)

also:

 _"China's monopoly of the supply of strategic "rare earth" minerals will end
when the Australian mining corporation Lynas brings a massive new refining
plant in Malaysia into operation later this year...

The company has invested about $230 million in a refinery covering about 20
hectares which in September is due to start processing about 11,000 tonnes of
rare earth oxide a year."_

[http://www.vancouversun.com/China+lose+monopoly+rare+earth+m...](http://www.vancouversun.com/China+lose+monopoly+rare+earth+minerals/4434648/story.html)

~~~
Natsu
I take it you didn't read the link I posted, or you'd have noticed that the
mine that released all that radioactive crap was owned by Molycorp Inc. Yes,
the same one you're talking about.

Wind can't do base load power, either. Maybe someone will work that out by, I
don't know, storing the energy in a flywheel or something. But they haven't
done so yet. It's also dependent on our solar energy budget (as is solar,
obviously). Conservation of energy is a pain, but no one knows how to violate
it yet.

------
dmfdmf
I'll step in and defend nuclear power. This crisis looks horrible and might
even lead to multiple core melts with containment breach. But let's not forget
this was a horrible natural disaster first. We engineers never said a meltdown
could never happen but that we have done everything possible to minimize the
risk. I can predict that the amount of lives lost and property damaged due to
this accident will pale when compared to other forms of energy including coal,
gas or oil when things go wrong -- a price we pay every single day and is so
common it hardly registers as news. What was cost of the BP oil spill? Read
your local news for _local_ gas explosions, oil spills, injured workers, etc.
People are killed in the coal industry every single year. These are such every
day occurrences they don't even register unless many people are killed or it
involves barrels of oil. This accident is like a plane crash that draws
attention to the horrors of flight when things go wrong -- but we still fly
and flying is orders of magnitude _safer_ then getting in your car.

All energy sources have risks and I believe that nuclear can be safe and
reliable and better than any of the alternatives. In the end we will build
nuclear power plants because there is no other large scale source of energy
that can power an industrial civilization. (If you think so-called green
energy and solar power can save us you need to learn some math. You are an
environmentalist dupe). Need I remind all the ambitious hackers on HN that
computers and the internet do not run on pixie dust -- it is running on oil,
gas, coal and, yes, nuclear power right now. We know that at some point the
oil will run out or become too expensive to mine. At that point its nuclear or
turn off the lights and the drastic drop in living standards that implies.

This accident will teach us a lot about how to design and build reactors and
nuclear power stations and maybe will delay the construction of those new
plants which would be the real tragedy of this accident. We need to start
building them now.

~~~
mmaro
Reposting piguy314's [dead] reply:

It's instructive that we've already engineered ways of preventing the problems
TEPCO is experiencing at their Fukushima. Many newer reactor designs have a
passive residual heat removal system that removes decay heat even without
electrical power to run cooling pumps.

[http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.h...](http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.html)

------
wbhart
As near as I can make out the details:

From the Japanese Prime Minister and Chief Cabinet Secretary. My source is NHK
World (Japan News):

People up to 30km from Dai-ichi (number-1) plant are being asked to remain
indoors. ALL people within 20km of PLANT 1 are being asked to evacuate.

The Japanese Govt. have asked the Japanese people to act calmly. (My comment:
Watch the stock market now.)

Here we go (information for PLANT 1 - Dai-ichi):

Number 4 reactor: is on fire. There has been a hydrogen explosion there. There
was an implosion of the building structure. Radiation is being released into
the environment. Note reactor 4 was not in operation, but the fire has caused
spent fuel to heat up generating hydrogen.

Number 2 reactor: there was a blast 30 minutes after number 4's explosion. A
hole/crack (trans?) has been observed in the reactor. Radioactive material has
been released to the environment.

At 10:22am between reactor 2 and 3, 30milliSievert and at reactor 4, 100
milliSievert. At reactor 3 the reading was 400 MILLI Sieverts. Note MILLI, not
micro.

They believe the fire at reactor number 4 is likely the main cause of the
dramatic increase in radiation.

The roof of a containment facility for spent fuel has also been damaged. It is
possible that a leak exists there too.

~~~
pyre

      >  A hole has been observed in the reactor. Radioactive
      > material has been released to the environment.
    

I was just watching the press conference, and I could have sworn they said
that the hole was in the reactor housing, and that little to no radiation was
being released from this reactor. I was only paying half-attention though.

~~~
wbhart
I agree that the information was highly confusing. I also thought I heard
this, but what I wrote is I believe correct nonetheless. :-(

The english translation is very poor. Yesterday they used the phrase: "there
is a small chance of a massive release of radioactive material". The correct
translation was in fact, "there is little chance that there has been any
substantial release of radioactive material"

------
radicaldreamer
Radiation has been measured at a rate of 400 mili sieverts near reactor 3. 100
mili sieverts is enough to make a male infertile.

Previous measurements were in micro sieverts.

Source: <https://twitter.com/#!/timeouttokyo/status/47480888463859712>

~~~
burke
Just as an added data point, one of the earliest measurements released (just
before or after the first explosion) was 1015 µSv.

------
jfoley
A live geiger counter that is set up in Western Tokyo. That upward tail is
pretty troubling. <http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html>

~~~
ronnier
Site is slow and not all graphs are loading, here's a SS I took of it with
both this years and last years graph:

<http://imgur.com/L8WKW?full>

~~~
pero
The top graph is now nosediving. An hour ago the upward-trend doubled in a 10
minute span.

What is the bottom graph representing?

~~~
jfoley
I believe the bottom graph indicates levels as measured one year ago.

EDIT: Looks like data from a little over a year ago- The date range in the
screenshot is from Dec 4th to 5th 2010.

~~~
patio11
The Japanese reads "For comparison: data from December 2010."

Other text: "100 CPM is equivalent to exposure of 1 micro-sievert per hour".
Or, approximately one tenth your rate of exposure when flying commercial.

------
ashbrahma
Didn't we just have a top story on HN yesterday which talked about how
everything was safe?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980>

------
dmm
Something I don't understand:

I keep hearing about seawater being pumped into the reactor chamber but
apparently the chamber is still very hot. Where is all this seawater going?
Steam? How big is this chamber?

EDIT: Also I've heard of at least two explosions. Does this mean that
containment vessels are compromised? What exactly exploded?

~~~
ErrantX
The water heats up, building pressure, and then they vent some steam to try
and lower the pressure (and then, obviously, have to re-add water). The
explosions happen because the steam separates into Hydrogen & Oxygen due to a
reaction, and once outside that is an explosive mix.

The chamber is pretty large, several meters deep around the core.

The explosions are as a result of the release of the hydrogen/oxygen mix -
which does not take much to catch - but they occurred outside the pressure
vessel. Such a situations is technically planned for, the building structure
"fails outward" allowing the blast out and away from the pressure containment.
It is relatively unlikely to damage the integrity of the vessel in such a
situation; they are very very strong pieces of kit (at three mile island the
explosion took place _inside_ the vessel and I believe it did not compromise
its integrity).

At this stage is somewhat unclear but it appears that the _third_ explosion
has damaged one of the pressure vessels. However the technical explanations I
am seeing are stating that it hasn't compromised the integrity of the
containment; instead it appears to be saying that parts of the mechanism
inside the containment are damaged (in this case the "torus" which is used as
an emergency pressure relief system).

This is actually, though, a significant problem, if true, because it could
affect what happens if it finally does meltdown (as I mention in another
comment, my working knowledge of this form of reactor is incomplete, but IIRC
the torus also forms part of the final emergency response to a meltdown).

Bottom line is; at this stage we know there have been 3 hydrogen explosions at
3 of the units, and one fire at another of the reactors. But it is still
unclear the level of damage and risk with each unit - TEPCO (and indeed
Japanese companies in general) tend to play down or not discuss details and
risk publicly. Take this fire; no one really picked it up _until it was out_
\- at which point TEPCO appear to have started mentioning it.

If I had to lay a claim I suspect that reactor 2 at this stage will probably
meltdown; loss of the torus is significant enough that it raises the risk of
what they are currently doing (i.e. trying to cool the core).

------
cdellin
Just a note - all radiation levels reported from around the plant are measured
in milli(m)/micro(u)-sieverts(Sv) _per hour_. For comparison, the worldwide
average background radiation level is approx. 0.274 uSv/h, and the usa
recommended continuous occupational limit is 5.71 uSv/h. For example, the
highest level I've seen reported is 400 mSv/h, or 70000x the recommended
limit. Info from wikipedia.

~~~
Natsu
I feel bad for posting the same thing so much, but there are just too many
discussions of this going on.

"As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose near MP6 was 4μSv/h. The
increase of the radiation dose cannot be confirmed at this time."

[http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/11031405-e....](http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/11031405-e.html)

I've seen lots of things reported, but I'm always leery of things that have
gone through two or three languages to get to us. We've all played that
translation party where things get translated into gibberish. I'm going to
have to take it with a grain of salt when people get their news from the
French embassy (which, last I knew, was not known for nuclear expertise, but
feel free to prove me wrong).

------
gnosis
_"Something that has not gotten much mention yet are the pools of high-level
radioactive waste at these very same reactors, which also need cooling...

...if the fuel pools are not cooled, they will melt down, in which case we’re
going to have Chernobyl on steroids."_

[http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_c...](http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_catastrophe_since_dawn)

------
Element_
Live geiger counter readings from Tokyo:
<http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo>

Rough translation of the prime ministers speech on reddit:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/)

------
ronnier
Here's the English dubbed LIVE NHK news from Japan:

<http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/r/movie/>

------
squidsoup
Kyodo News (<http://english.kyodonews.jp/>) are reporting that radiation
levels in Chiba are twice to 4 times normal level and 33 times normal level in
Utsunomiya, Tochigi.

------
chailatte
Japan's warning that all people within 30 kilometers from Fukushima should
stay indoors and that the radioactive winds may reach Tokyo in as little as 8
hours

Nikkei Flash Crash - Futures Plummet 16%

[http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nikkei-flash-crash-
futures-...](http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nikkei-flash-crash-futures-
plummet-16-all-hell-breaks-loose-japan#comments)

