Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,177 Year: 5,434/9,624 Month: 459/323 Week: 99/204 Day: 15/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 3 of 175 (608739)
03-13-2011 8:21 AM


It is a terrible thing to happen anywhere. I think the damage done to the infrastructure probably caused many not to be able to escape from the tsunami.
On a more disturbing note, the nuke plants worry me. They are currently using seawater to cool several reactors and Japaneese Govt done said a second explosion may occur. Any water coming in to contact with the core is going to be radioactive, where is the water being pumped in going...back to sea I would think. Normally the seawater used to cool the plants does its job in a heat exchanger, water used to cool the core is in a closed loop, normaly. I wonder how radioactive the water is after coming into contact with a damaged core?? I havent heard anyone on the news talking about that.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 8:34 AM fearandloathing has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 5 of 175 (608741)
03-13-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
03-13-2011 8:34 AM


The coating on the fuel rods creates Hydrogen gas, when they vented it from the reactor pressure vessel int the containment building it exploded. There has been cesium detected, that only happens if fuel is exposed. There is no doubt that they are doing the best they can...lesser of 2 evils. The big question is how much damage, I knew it was worse than they are letting on when they said they were using boron. When you use boron. boric acid usualy, you don't plan on ever using that reactor again. Boron injection is also something that normally wouldn't be done unless some fuel has melted. Once a fuel assembly melts and pools up in the reactor bottom it has nothing to moderate it as the control rods are above the molten fuel, boron is one of the only things you can do to try and moderate the reaction. I lived about 4 miles from a plant in NC here...Sharon Harris, I read up little when I lived there. They are giving out Iodine also, also an indication of bad things. Iodine keeps your thyroid from absorbing the radioactive isotope of iodine which is created in fission reaction, contrary to the way news portrays it as being anti-radiation pills, they are not, they simply keep your thyroid safe from the most likely form of exposure due to a release.
If you have a shortwave radio that can receive single sideband, ssb, tune to 11.175 upper sideband. It is one of USAF global HF frequencies, you can find listings for navy ect...just google it. They have been busy last 48 hrs.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 8:34 AM frako has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 9 of 175 (608758)
03-13-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
03-13-2011 1:19 PM


Taz writes:
I'm about to say something that on its face value appears heartless. But someone has to say it. If a devastating earthquake and tsunami have to occur, thank goodness it wasn't another 3rd world country. The level of suffering doesn't linger as long in a 1st world country as it does in a 3rd world country.
I see nothing wrong with what you said, I thought the same thing sort of...I told a friend " at least they have better building codes and emergency services than some do, all except for the nuclear situation, they are prepared for this . I don't think realistically they could ve ever been ready for a disaster of this scale any better.
All of their nuke plants are on the coast and use seawater as coolant water for their heat-exchangers. This seems unwise to me, but if they had used lakes as source of cooling water and a dam got compromised, then things could ve been worse, at least there is no worry of having enough access to water. Other than that it seems like a foolish place to place one considering Japans history with quakes and tsunamies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 03-13-2011 1:19 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-13-2011 3:10 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 12 of 175 (608768)
03-13-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by frako
03-13-2011 2:40 PM


frako writes:
Damm this erthquake was powerfull we mesured it and we are practicly on the other side of the globe. The days got shorter by 1 milisecond i think and the erths tilt got mowed by 10 cm.
Wow..I heard on CNN I think earlier that it changed our tilt by 4 degrees and parts of japan was moved 8 feet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 2:40 PM frako has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 16 of 175 (608775)
03-13-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by frako
03-13-2011 3:32 PM


frako writes:
Lol ours (only got one,only 2 million of us dont need more) is also built on a faultline tough safe from tcunamies.
dunno why they built it there probably the worst spot to put it in slovenija.
Yea looks like it sits in the middle of some fine agricultural land and less than 6 or 7 kilometers from 2 population centers and a large airport. Krsko and Brezice, looks like a lot people live witin 12 kilometers of the plant, not to mention Cerklje airfeild, wich looks military??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 3:32 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 7:14 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 45 of 175 (608982)
03-15-2011 5:25 PM


I don't oppose nuclear power,although I would like to see safer designs. I understand the economics on placing multiple reactors at one location, security , handling of dangerous waste at one site, not to mention being able to still produce power when a reactor is down for repairs etc...But in japans case a seres of events has culminated in at the very least the loss of most if not all of that plant. Time will tell how bad it will ultimately be, and then we must learn and apply this to make an industry with a good safety record safer.
Comparing coal to nuclear don't always make sense when it comes to safety. If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
Coal is nasty to mine and burn, but I think both can be improved upon as can nuclear. Comparing deaths in coal mining compared to uranium mining is ludicrous... I not even sure if there is more than 2 or 3 mines in USA that mine uranium. But I will go out on a limb and say it is probably far fewer deaths simply because of how few there are compared to coal. If whoever wants to look at USA mining safety record I am sure you could at Dpt of interior or mining safety. Shouldn't be too hard as this type of info is public.
Although it is probably just another case of knit-picking because they have nothing valid to say and would rather answer a question with a question as opposed to researching it then making a statement.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 6:19 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2011 6:30 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 46 of 175 (608983)
03-15-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
slevesque writes:
Hi Rahvin,
You realize that uranium must be mined too, right ? How many deaths per capita are there in that type of mining compared to coal.
I don't really have a strong opinion on this since in Quebec we are world-leaders in Hydro-electricity (and the funny thing is, that there is a rising movement in the population claiming this is not clean energy :S) and also have a huge eolian potential in the northern part of the province, so Nuclear isn't really an option (we have only one nuclear plant, and apperently it's very safe)
But I found it a bit odd to include deaths by mining coal, and not by mining uranium.
Yes you only have one plant, right in the middle of your 2 largest cities, you should keep it in your prayers. There is one more near the bay of Fundy, but that's not same province.
Don't think hydro is a non-invasive type of power generation when it comes to the environment. It changes the whole river system it is on, affects migration and breeding of some fish many many impacts that cant be denied. Although I do belive wind hydro are mostly green as they don't pollute in the traditional sense, but they do affect the environment. There will be trade-offs in anything we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:25 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2011 9:31 AM fearandloathing has not replied
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 03-16-2011 2:03 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 52 of 175 (608995)
03-15-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 6:19 PM


Re: "Worst case scenario"
Rahvin writes:
Comparing coal to nuclear don't always make sense when it comes to safety. If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
i do wonder - what do people here believe is the worst case scenario for a nuclear disaster?
Chernobyl? That was far and away the worst so far. Is that as bad as you think it gets? Do you think it could be worse? What do you think would actually happen if a RAR TERRORIST flew a plane into a nuclear power plant? What specifically do you think would happen?
I don't know. Chernobyl wasn't bad enough?? Look at site on google earth, make sure community layers is on as well as photo's. I would guess wind and weather would play a large part. Fist the core of one or more would have to become exposed. I am not sure it will go that far, if it was to experience a full loss of containment it might effect more area then Chernobyl? Being near ocean raises a few concerns for me as well. But ultimately I cant say
.
It is a large area of land near Chernobyl where nobody can live...for now...too expensive to clean up.
I am only saying it is not as simple as it seems, many things to take into account. We need to learn from it, not condemn nuclear power because of it. As I said earlier, it was not one thing but a series of events that when combined leave us where we are now. Chernobyl was much different in design and operation, ultimatly it was man who is responsible for it...not a natural disaster like Japan. Japans reactors have added layers of safety it dint. I do feel that the way used fuel rods are handled will be one of the first thing to need a little thought on.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 6:19 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 7:43 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 55 of 175 (609001)
03-15-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
03-15-2011 7:18 PM


Re: NYT article
Taq writes:
Interesting NYT article that details long standing criticisms of the reactor design:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
quote:
The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.
I'm not an expert on nuclear reactor designs, but it does sound like there is some truth to the idea that these reactors are substandard.
CNN interviewed someone who said that in the 80's a study was done and it was thought there was a 90% chance of a failure...I was on phone and missed who was saying what....Looks like it is generally accepted that the Mk 1 design is flawed? I am going to look into is as this is first time I heard this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 7:18 PM Taq has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 66 of 175 (609066)
03-16-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by dronestar
03-16-2011 9:47 AM


Re: micro nuclear power plants?
dronester writes:
Anybody read this article in National Geographic? Very interesting:
Small Town Nukes
National Geographic Magazine
"Small reactors can't address all the problems standing in the way of more nuclear investment, but they can address the biggest barriersthe economic ones,"
"Besides costing less to build, some small reactors could be inherently SAFER, . . ."
(BTW, this was a most interesting thread/topic. Most particpants had valid thoughts and examples that were thought provoking. IMHO, this is what EvC should be about. Thanks all)
Some good info on reactor tech at http://www.ga.com/energy/em2/ it is general atomics site, go to their home page and look under products for another type of reactor also.
I have also read that the heat from this type of reactor could also be used to produce hydrogen cheaper and cleaner than we currently can, This may be something that could help make hydrogen a viable energy alternative?
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2011 9:47 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Son, posted 03-16-2011 1:52 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 73 of 175 (609091)
03-16-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Son
03-16-2011 1:52 PM


Re: micro nuclear power plants?
Son writes:
Just to be clear, hydrogene cannot be a source of energy, it's just storing energy since hydrogene produced comes from water.
Yes hydrogen is an energy conveyor, I never said it was a source. It takes lots of power to produce it now or if it is made from natural gas then there are other by products mainly co2 if I remember right. If it can be produced as a secondary product by higher temperature reactors, then it might be a alternative to gasoline or other fossil fuels. I should've been clearer in my last post, Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Son, posted 03-16-2011 1:52 PM Son has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 80 of 175 (609129)
03-16-2011 7:05 PM


on a differnt note
I would like to acknowledge the men/women who are trying to bring this crisis under control at the power plant. By doing their jobs, they are putting their health on the line. No matter how you feel about nuclear power these people need to be recognized. No matter the outcome these people are HEROS, though I suspect most of them would disagree.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 7:26 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 97 of 175 (609219)
03-17-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 2:41 PM


Re: pretty
1.61803 writes:
very pretty, now go have a picnic there. I dare you.
You can...you can go visit and see memorial to those who died and to those who put their life on line.
Some people even live in their old houses, although I feel it is crazy to do so. Check out this link, also there is lot of other info about Chernobyl on wiki, just got to verify sources with some of it.
Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:41 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:59 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 108 of 175 (609233)
03-17-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 2:59 PM


Re: pretty
1.61803 writes:
go ahead. I'll pass. Why your at it go have a swim at Bikini, and perhaps a bit of sushi in Fukashima.
If you flip for the bill then I got my passport ready, I would love to go visit Chernobyl and bikini...hell why not where we tested in the Aleutians also...and the south Atlantic....and lets not forget the Nevada test site....looks like craters of the moon one valley west of area 51...north of Vegas...we poped them off underground in Mississippi.. google operation plow share and gas buggy. I respect radiation same as I do electricity. I even have transmitting tubes in my HF amplifier that contain radioactive elements...if one broke and I ingested some or inhaled it, it wouldn't be good...course if your watch has tritium so numbers glow in dark you wouldn't want to eat it either.
Don't let propaganda and irrational fear of radiation keep you from researching it. There are many man made disaster...love canal...DDT/agent orange...Lakes at coal fired power plants where signs tell you to eat no more than 6 oz a week of fish caugt in them, and pregnant women shouldnt eat none.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:59 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 3:31 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4256 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 116 of 175 (609244)
03-17-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 4:11 PM


Re: Wrong.
1.61803 writes:
Hi Rahvin, I already said I am not a expert. I already said I am not a nuclear academic. I already conceded that your mention of how minor the death toll of chernobly was and how even in the face of hundreds of thousands killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By willful use of nuclear power,
Hitler still managed to instutute geneocide. And Kill More people than was killed by H bombs.
Hypocracy and fear are common place. Yes there are a great many things that pose a far greater risk than nuclear power does. I also admit I do not know how a nuclear plant works.
All I know is this, there are multiple nuclear meltdowns in progress for what ever reasons. There is a potential for loss of life and contamination on a wide scale. I am aware of the longevity of radioactive contamination, and the waste that is produced. Because I am aware of how lacks cornercutting bueracracies and corporations can ram shit through. I am thankful I live in America. Thank goodness for paranoid hippies. Otherwise there would be a corporate run nuclear plant in every city in America run with the same feckless attitudes as those on the deepwater horizon oil rig. Regardless of the emergency it seems the same attitudes and placation always seems to takes place, "this is a isolated incident." "This is a perfect storm"...etc.. well I call bull shit. The reason people are afraid of nuclear plants is well founded. They are dangerous. If they were not then wtf is going on in Japan. I assure you it isnt Godzilla.
I am not against nuclear power. I just wish more would be done to build up wind/solar and other such infrastructures. I do fear the poliferation of nuclear plants all over the U.S. This recent tragedy is not helping my fears.
All the more reason to learn. Do you have a plan for any emergency?Please don't get me wrong I am not trying to do anything except make you think.
I have a backpack with all I deem necessary to walk away and have a better chance of survival in most any situation that I feel may arise in my area. I enjoy backpacking and many other outdoors activities, hunting, fishing and these skills are good to know, if you don't have them then let me recommend a few books to place in your bug-out bag. How To Stay Alive in the WOODS, US army field manual on survival. If you can you should also be ready to stay put, have a good store of dried foods, water ect...least 10 days worth...30 would be better.
Extra meds if you take prescriptions, talk to your doc, most will give you what you want as long as it isn't a narcotic or Valium ect...
Suitable clothing in your pack...not too much as it takes up space...You can get a full CBRN suit pretty cheap if you want to be real prepared, I live near lot of military and got mine, mask and all less than 200 bucks.
You see where I am going though...be prepared for as much as you can...Don't depend on the govt to be there right away...its best to be proactive when it comes to your survival. Help may never come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 4:11 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024