• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

WCH

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The operator of Japan's wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant took the first step on Monday in the long and hazardous process of decommissioning the facility, extracting a fuel rod from its container for later removal.

Tokyo Electric Power Co said it transferred the rod to a steel cask within the same cooling pool in a badly damaged reactor building, beginning the delicate and unprecedented task of removing 400 tonnes of highly irradiated spent fuel from that reactor.

While battling leaks of radiation-contaminated water around the plant, which was knocked out by Japan's mammoth March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Tepco has embarked on decommissioning four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. That task is likely to take decades and cost tens of billions of dollars.

Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal | Reuters


Prayers up for all those folks doing this job.
 
WCH said:
The operator of Japan's wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant took the first step on Monday in the long and hazardous process of decommissioning the facility, extracting a fuel rod from its container for later removal.

Tokyo Electric Power Co said it transferred the rod to a steel cask within the same cooling pool in a badly damaged reactor building, beginning the delicate and unprecedented task of removing 400 tonnes of highly irradiated spent fuel from that reactor.

While battling leaks of radiation-contaminated water around the plant, which was knocked out by Japan's mammoth March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Tepco has embarked on decommissioning four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. That task is likely to take decades and cost tens of billions of dollars.

Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal | Reuters


Prayers up for all those folks doing this job.
Click to expand...

You also might make a note that every Nuclear Plant in the USA has stored fuel rods in aging pools and no long term plan for their disposal. If a Nuclear Utility stops making a profit, it can declare bankruptcy and baptize us citizenry with these fuel storage pools, among other things. That is just Corporate business per usual. Bankruptcy is always an option to shed liability.
 
DaveFagan said:
You also might make a note that every Nuclear Plant in the USA has stored fuel rods in aging pools and no long term plan for their disposal. If a Nuclear Utility stops making a profit, it can declare bankruptcy and baptize us citizenry with these fuel storage pools, among other things. That is just Corporate business per usual. Bankruptcy is always an option to shed liability.
Click to expand...

They don't have any plans because morons keep stopping any plans they do come up with.
 
Deuce said:
They don't have any plans because morons keep stopping any plans they do come up with.
Click to expand...

That would be starting with GE, General Electric in 1953 when they stated that their engineers would have a solution for nuclear waste problem within six (6) months. That was the original justification to begin "NUKE" plants. Our classroom voted at the time to wait the six months for the solution before doing Nuke Plants. A really "Big Lie" works every time, just like Iraq has WMDs, don't you think?
 
DaveFagan said:
That would be starting with GE, General Electric in 1953 when they stated that their engineers would have a solution for nuclear waste problem within six (6) months. That was the original justification to begin "NUKE" plants. Our classroom voted at the time to wait the six months for the solution before doing Nuke Plants. A really "Big Lie" works every time, just like Iraq has WMDs, don't you think?
Click to expand...

There is a solution to nuclear waste. It can be recycled. The process is easily within our capabilities and has been for decades. 95% of that "waste" is still usable.

I'm going to suggest that you as a child were not actually aware of what did or did not justify the construction of nuclear power plants. Your classroom voted? So what? Your average adult isn't well-enough informed about nuclear engineering to form any kind of reasonable opinion. Let alone school children. The notion that your classroom had all the facts given to them prior to this vote is just ludicrous.
 
Deuce said:
There is a solution to nuclear waste. It can be recycled. The process is easily within our capabilities and has been for decades. 95% of that "waste" is still usable.

I'm going to suggest that you as a child were not actually aware of what did or did not justify the construction of nuclear power plants. Your classroom voted? So what? Your average adult isn't well-enough informed about nuclear engineering to form any kind of reasonable opinion. Let alone school children. The notion that your classroom had all the facts given to them prior to this vote is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is ludicrous. We had plenty of information, but specifically that the nuke waste would be toxic for millions of years. The impression given by GE was that they would be able to neutralize the waste. Our conclusion was really simple. No entity should be allowed to produce a hazard that doesn't die when they die. Simple responsibility. This was all about big profit and nuclear weapons and it was when Ike woke up to the insidious nature of the Military/Industrial/Corporate network.
 
DaveFagan said:
Your conclusion is ludicrous. We had plenty of information, but specifically that the nuke waste would be toxic for millions of years. The impression given by GE was that they would be able to neutralize the waste. Our conclusion was really simple. No entity should be allowed to produce a hazard that doesn't die when they die. Simple responsibility. This was all about big profit and nuclear weapons and it was when Ike woke up to the insidious nature of the Military/Industrial/Corporate network.
Click to expand...

All heavy metals are toxic for millions of years. Because heavy metals are toxic. Uranium happens to be one, but this also includes things like lead or gold or mercury. Do you want to stop using those entirely? This notion has us in a world without batteries or computers. Or a million other things.
What you really mean to say is that the waste is radioactive for millions of years. But you know what? Something with a half-life of millions of years isn't a particularly dangerous radiation hazard. Because it takes millions of years to release half its energy! Have a picnic next to one of those storage ponds, the far bigger radiation risk is the sunlight. And like I said, we can recycle upwards of 95% of it. That remainder? Far safer than the waste from a coal plant. Coal waste contains uranium. So you also want to stop using coal power, apparently.

You don't even have enough information about this now, as an adult. As a child, you certainly did not.
 
Deuce said:
All heavy metals are toxic for millions of years. Because heavy metals are toxic. Uranium happens to be one, but this also includes things like lead or gold or mercury. Do you want to stop using those entirely? This notion has us in a world without batteries or computers. Or a million other things.
What you really mean to say is that the waste is radioactive for millions of years. But you know what? Something with a half-life of millions of years isn't a particularly dangerous radiation hazard. Because it takes millions of years to release half its energy! Have a picnic next to one of those storage ponds, the far bigger radiation risk is the sunlight. And like I said, we can recycle upwards of 95% of it. That remainder? Far safer than the waste from a coal plant. Coal waste contains uranium. So you also want to stop using coal power, apparently.

You don't even have enough information about this now, as an adult. As a child, you certainly did not.
Click to expand...

Your delightful attempt at obfuscation wouldn't confuse a two year old. It is perfectly OK with me if you make any poison you want in your own house. Eat it, drink it, stick it up your nose and because it's inside your house, that is OK with me. When your toxins invade the public domain, screw you. That is simply wrong, even if everybody is doing it. That's where global warming comes from as everybody's doing it. Many would simply refer to it as "ignorance." Why not stop by the store and get a can of tuna fish and make a nice sandwich. Probably from the Pacific. 9 out of 9 recently caught tuna tested radioactive linked to Fukushima. Have a nice sandwich.
 
DaveFagan said:
Your delightful attempt at obfuscation wouldn't confuse a two year old. It is perfectly OK with me if you make any poison you want in your own house. Eat it, drink it, stick it up your nose and because it's inside your house, that is OK with me. When your toxins invade the public domain, screw you. That is simply wrong, even if everybody is doing it. That's where global warming comes from as everybody's doing it. Many would simply refer to it as "ignorance." Why not stop by the store and get a can of tuna fish and make a nice sandwich. Probably from the Pacific. 9 out of 9 recently caught tuna tested radioactive linked to Fukushima. Have a nice sandwich.
Click to expand...

You've switched from storage to spillage. That's interesting. But sure, let's talk about that too.

Coal waste invades the public domain, as does the production of half the stuff in the room you're sitting in right now. The computer you're using to type this? You don't think there was any pollution involved in its production? It's wrong, by your own admission. So stop buying electronics. Or using electricity.

I'm perfectly comfortable eating tuna from the Pacific. (other than the fact that it tastes like tuna) Because I'm aware that even the "elevated" levels of radioactivity in those fish is still below the dangerous threshold. A banana is literally more radioactive than one of those fish. Brazil nuts are like a thousand times more radioactive. The "safe" level that the Japanese government has adopted is absurdly low. It's like putting the speed limit at one tenth of a mile per hour. A hundred times faster is still being overly cautious.

Now, before you go and try to shove some words in my mouth, no, I am not suggesting we treat nuclear power like a toy. I'm not saying nuclear power is very safe so we should treat it in a cavalier fashion. Rather, I'm suggesting nuclear power is very safe because we treat it with such care. Fukushima was a serious accident, a massive, record-setting earthquake followed by a huge tsunami. And you know what? It was contained pretty well. It's not a testament to the dangers of nuclear power, it's a testament to just how well we've done in making it as safe as possible. Fukushima was an older, less-advanced reactor. A different, newer reactor only a couple miles away survived the event without issue. It initiated its emergency shutdown exactly as intended. Backup cooling systems operated normally until external power was restored. Zero issues.The reactor that melted down? Running past its design life. Because the NIMBY folks like yourself insist that newer, safer reactors can't be built because you're afraid of them.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
You've switched from storage to spillage. That's interesting. But sure, let's talk about that too.

Coal waste invades the public domain, as does the production of half the stuff in the room you're sitting in right now. The computer you're using to type this? You don't think there was any pollution involved in its production? It's wrong, by your own admission. So stop buying electronics. Or using electricity.

I'm perfectly comfortable eating tuna from the Pacific. (other than the fact that it tastes like tuna) Because I'm aware that even the "elevated" levels of radioactivity in those fish is still below the dangerous threshold. A banana is literally more radioactive than one of those fish. Brazil nuts are like a thousand times more radioactive. The "safe" level that the Japanese government has adopted is absurdly low. It's like putting the speed limit at one tenth of a mile per hour. A hundred times faster is still being overly cautious.

Now, before you go and try to shove some words in my mouth, no, I am not suggesting we treat nuclear power like a toy. I'm not saying nuclear power is very safe so we should treat it in a cavalier fashion. Rather, I'm suggesting nuclear power is very safe because we treat it with such care. Fukushima was a serious accident, a massive, record-setting earthquake followed by a huge tsunami. And you know what? It was contained pretty well. It's not a testament to the dangers of nuclear power, it's a testament to just how well we've done in making it as safe as possible. Fukushima was an older, less-advanced reactor. A different, newer reactor only a couple miles away survived the event without issue. It initiated its emergency shutdown exactly as intended. Backup cooling systems operated normally until external power was restored. Zero issues.The reactor that melted down? Running past its design life. Because the NIMBY folks like yourself insist that newer, safer reactors can't be built because you're afraid of them.
Click to expand...

I don't recall debating anyone so misinformed. Fukushima was built with and inadequate seawall in a place that had stone tsunami markers identifying previous tsunami levels. These were ignored by the engineering geniuses with the hugely safe design parameters and cost effectiveness mitigating factors. Translated. Screw the people. If it happens we'll claim it was an unforeseeable act of nature and laugh all the way to the bank. Remember the stone tsunami markers. There are no excuses here. Right now the molten coriums from the three reactors are in unknown locations somewhere beneath their original locations. Most likely will cook their way into the underground flowing water that will cool them and send their deadly mother lode into the Pacific, slowly and deadly. Hubris and arrogance combine with greed to engineer a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Yeh, them nukes gotta be wonderful stuff.
 
DaveFagan said:
I don't recall debating anyone so misinformed. Fukushima was built with and inadequate seawall in a place that had stone tsunami markers identifying previous tsunami levels. These were ignored by the engineering geniuses with the hugely safe design parameters and cost effectiveness mitigating factors. Translated. Screw the people. If it happens we'll claim it was an unforeseeable act of nature and laugh all the way to the bank. Remember the stone tsunami markers. There are no excuses here. Right now the molten coriums from the three reactors are in unknown locations somewhere beneath their original locations. Most likely will cook their way into the underground flowing water that will cool them and send their deadly mother lode into the Pacific, slowly and deadly. Hubris and arrogance combine with greed to engineer a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Yeh, them nukes gotta be wonderful stuff.
Click to expand...

:roll: And a simple solution is to put backup generators for the coolant system higher up. Which newer reactors do. Let me know when your cataclysm occurs. Death count so far: zero
 
Deuce said:
:roll: And a simple solution is to put backup generators for the coolant system higher up. Which newer reactors do. Let me know when your cataclysm occurs. Death count so far: zero
Click to expand...

Google Fort Calhoun Nuclear. Have a dandy. photos floods
 
DaveFagan said:
Google Fort Calhoun Nuclear. Have a dandy. photos floods
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with it. Another example of zero casualties. Safety precautions worked as intended. Plant shut down safely. Backup cooling systems were supplied with additional fuel just in case.

still waiting for your cataclysm.
 
Deuce said:
I'm familiar with it. Another example of zero casualties. Safety precautions worked as intended. Plant shut down safely. Backup cooling systems were supplied with additional fuel just in case.

still waiting for your cataclysm.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so you discount premature deaths from cancers and the like directly attributable to exposure from nuclear accidents? And yes, the safety precautions worked soooo well that there was no noticable increase in radiation for thousands of miles because of the fukashima event, right? :roll:
 
Deuce said:
I'm familiar with it. Another example of zero casualties. Safety precautions worked as intended. Plant shut down safely. Backup cooling systems were supplied with additional fuel just in case.

still waiting for your cataclysm.
Click to expand...

I know that you are not troubled by the seven nuclear reactors littering the ocean floors from lost/sunken/super safe nuclear submarines, eh? Not to worry, you can't see that radiation anyway. Hanford. Fernald. Bikini. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Kursk. Thrasher. ad infinitum.
 
DaveFagan said:
You also might make a note that every Nuclear Plant in the USA has stored fuel rods in aging pools and no long term plan for their disposal. If a Nuclear Utility stops making a profit, it can declare bankruptcy and baptize us citizenry with these fuel storage pools, among other things. That is just Corporate business per usual. Bankruptcy is always an option to shed liability.
Click to expand...

If you are under the impression that we will be bathed in radiation from stored fuel rods if a utility company goes bankrupt then you can rest assured because that isn't what happens.
 
DaveFagan said:
I know that you are not troubled by the seven nuclear reactors littering the ocean floors from lost/sunken/super safe nuclear submarines, eh? Not to worry, you can't see that radiation anyway. Hanford. Fernald. Bikini. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Kursk. Thrasher. ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

Of course not. They are much safer underwater than they could be anywhere else. Deep water is one of the best places to put waste if you are trying to avoid health or contamination risks.
 
Sherman123 said:
Of course not. They are much safer underwater than they could be anywhere else. Deep water is one of the best places to put waste if you are trying to avoid health or contamination risks.
Click to expand...

Yeah because we all know radiation disappears when it's out of sight and underwater. Classic sweeping the problem under the rug. Heck, you may have stumbled onto something, let's dump our medical waste in the deep, that'll fix the problem.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah because we all know radiation disappears when it's out of sight and underwater. Classic sweeping the problem under the rug.
Click to expand...

Deep sea trench disposal has many benefits including isolation, the dilution of the waste, the limited field of contamination, the long term possibility of geological subduction, the positive anti-radioactive benefits of submerging it in water, etc.

Even if a breach in containment occurs it really isn't that big a deal. I think you underestimate how vast the ocean is, and the positive impact water has on radioactive materials. This is the IAEA's inventory of waste sites at sea, and the studies that have been conducted don't indicate any significant contamination worthy of our attention.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1105_prn.pdf
 
Sherman123 said:
Deep sea trench disposal has many benefits including isolation, the dilution of the waste, the limited field of contamination, the long term possibility of geological subduction, the positive anti-radioactive benefits of submerging it in water, etc.

Even if a breach in containment occurs it really isn't that big a deal. I think you underestimate how vast the ocean is, and the positive impact water has on radioactive materials. This is the IAEA's inventory of waste sites at sea, and the studies that have been conducted don't indicate any significant contamination worthy of our attention.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1105_prn.pdf
Click to expand...

Once again, just sweeping the problem under the rug. The oceans are vast, but there is a tipping point no matter how vast a system is. We don't know enough about subduction zones to nail what's going to happen to that waste. We have a general idea of the subduction system, but we're nowhere near predicting behavior long term or short term.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, just sweeping the problem under the rug. The oceans are vast, but there is a tipping point no matter how vast a system is. We don't know enough about subduction zones to nail what's going to happen to that waste. We have a general idea of the subduction system, but we're nowhere near predicting behavior long term or short term.
Click to expand...

If we assembled all of the high emitting nuclear waste we have ever produced and delivered it to a deep sea trench it would not be enough to make an impact. Especially with the system of cask containment.
 
Sherman123 said:
If you are under the impression that we will be bathed in radiation from stored fuel rods if a utility company goes bankrupt then you can rest assured because that isn't what happens.
Click to expand...


I'm under the impression that we will be bathed in decommissioning costs, while those that profited handsomely will doing Mai Tais and hi fives in Tahiti. It's our grandchildren that will be bathed in radiation.
 
clownboy said:
Interesting, so you discount premature deaths from cancers and the like directly attributable to exposure from nuclear accidents? And yes, the safety precautions worked soooo well that there was no noticable increase in radiation for thousands of miles because of the fukashima event, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

I discount deaths that haven't happened, yes.
 
DaveFagan said:
I know that you are not troubled by the seven nuclear reactors littering the ocean floors from lost/sunken/super safe nuclear submarines, eh? Not to worry, you can't see that radiation anyway. Hanford. Fernald. Bikini. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Kursk. Thrasher. ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

I'm not troubled by a nuclear reactor on the bottom of the ocean, no.
You could have had a picnic on Three Mild Island on the day of the event and had no problems as a result. Your greater cancer risk would have been from the sunlight.
Are you really comparing deliberate nuclear weapons tests and Chernobyl to modern reactor design? Why not just bring up the black plague while you're at it?
 
Dave, is there a personal reason you hate nuclear energy? Your reaction to this topic and the information provided does not seem rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom