Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3883 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 17 of 175 (608794)
03-13-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
03-13-2011 8:34 AM


Nuclear Power Plant Problems
I seem to recall some issues that the company that built and operates the plant had in 2007 when another earthquake struck. They would not allow the IAEA to asist in determining the extent of damage that might have occured to the plant. The company (TEPCo?) also built the plant to withstand a max 7.9 magnitude earthquake, while this one was rated as a 8.8-9.0.
*There might have been some other issues with falsification of paperwork supplied to the government about the risk of building on a fault line but I haven't taken the time to look again where I had read the report.

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

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3883 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 19 of 175 (608796)
03-13-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-13-2011 7:21 AM


Surviving after a disaster
Finding food, water and shelter are now the most pressing need for the survivors. There was still snow on the ground in parts of the surrounding countryside of Sendai and there are little to no utilities online for millions. No water and no electricity for millions is another disaster, albeit a slow one.
*On a side note, a 60 year old man was found clinging to the roof of his house after two days, about 9 miles out a sea. Thankfully a military vessel spotted him. Hopefully there will be more miracles like his.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-13-2011 7:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3883 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 127 of 175 (609354)
03-18-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rahvin
03-17-2011 3:38 PM


Re-criticality
Just risking the jump-in to point out that a TEPCo spokesman indicated that there is a slight danger of re-criticality from the spent fuel ponds. One of the reasons they are determined to 'pour' Boric acid into the exposed ponds. (My understanding: The spent fuel was packed in tighter, and some of the newer spent fuel might still have sufficient radioactivity for criticality, as space for the spent fuel became hard to find.)
Spent fuel, because of its very nature as spent, is too highly contaminated with the products of the fission reaction to actually begin that chain reaction, which is why it's not still in the reactor core in the first place.
*Just an aside and full of maybes so not an 'ZOMG! We're going to die!' comment. Just pointing out that re-criticality possibility is not 0.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2011 3:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3883 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 137 of 175 (609571)
03-21-2011 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
03-20-2011 9:50 AM


Re: Question about Nuclear Plant Design
Are nuclear power plant containment facilities designed to maintain integrity if something like this were to happen directly beneath them?
IIRC the NP industry (at least in the U.S.) is under regulations that do not allow building too close to active faults. I am not sure what is considered a safe distance, and I am not sure what the tsunami regulations might be. (San Clemente comes to mind)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 03-20-2011 9:50 AM Percy has seen this message but 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