Fukushima: Revisited

News From AP | TBO.com=

"About 200,000 tons of radioactive water - enough to fill more than 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools - are being stored in hundreds of gigantic tanks built around the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. Operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has already chopped down trees to make room for more tanks and predicts the volume of water will more than triple within three years."

"Nuclear engineer and college lecturer Masashi Goto said the contaminated water buildup poses a long-term health and environmental threat. He worries that the radioactive water in the basements may already be getting into the underground water system, where it could reach far beyond the plant, possibly the ocean or public water supplies."

"Some of the water ran into the ocean, raising concerns about contamination of marine life and seafood. Waters within a 20-kilometer (12-mile) zone are still off-limits, and high levels of contamination have been found in seabed sediment and fish tested in the area."

If another earthquake is still a possibility, and a disastrous one, do you feel reassured?

Is enough being done?

Did this information surprise anyone?

What does this imply about nuke power long term?

AP Interview: Japan nuke plant water worries rise

This was the article title. I was surprised by the volume of contaminated water and the comments on groundwater contamination. It takes a long time for truth to find its way out, just like the water. I wonder if anyone has told the fish about the 12 mile exclusion zone so that they won't swim and eat in there, and then swim back out with their newfound contamination. Silly me, of course they have, or not. Ya think?

It is truthful to say that NO form of power is 100% safe...
And, I believe ,that despite all that has happened (TMI, Chernobyl, Japan), nuclear is among the safer sources of power.
The problem is man, in his rush and greed, tosses craftsmanship to the winds.
This he must work on.....as well as honesty and truthfulness...Without these, man cannot be trusted...and maybe he should not be allowed to play with the atom.....
The UN should be monitoring the waters at the accident site, at Japan's expense.

I was just reading up on recent developments (or lack of) the other day. A question crossed my mind, why would man attempt to use something so dangerous that if something went wrong we were totally screwed and nothing man can to can fix it? The only answer I came up with is GREED. Who cares that we risk humanity and world health if we can make mad cash in the process! It really is sad mankind is willing to stoop so low.

Baralis said:

I was just reading up on recent developments (or lack of) the other day. A question crossed my mind, why would man attempt to use something so dangerous that if something went wrong we were totally screwed and nothing man can to can fix it? The only answer I came up with is GREED. Who cares that we risk humanity and world health if we can make mad cash in the process! It really is sad mankind is willing to stoop so low.

Click to expand...

Are you asking to discuss your premise or your conclusion?

nuclear is a lot better than fossil fuels. i'm hoping that we put some research money into thorium, which from what i've read seems to be a better technology.

AliHajiSheik said:

Are you asking to discuss your premise or your conclusion?

Click to expand...

Either I suppose

http://fukushimaupdate.com/ground-u...king-structure-on-verge-of-complete-collapse/

According to the Secretary of former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, the ground beneath Unit 4 has already sunk by about 31.5 inches since the disaster, and this sinking has taken place unevenly. If the ground continues to sink, which it is expected to, or if another earthquake of even as low as a magnitude six occurs in the region, the entire structure could collapse, which would fully drain the cooling pool and cause a catastrophic meltdown.

“If Unit 4 collapses, the worse case scenario will be a meltdown, and a resultant fire in the atmosphere. That will be the most unprecedented crisis that man has ever experienced. Nobody will be able to approach the plants … as all will have melted down and caused a big fire,” said Murata during the interview. “Many scientists say if Unit 4 collapses, not only will Japan lie in ruin, but the entire world will also face serious damages.”

Click to expand...

While it may be a bit alarmist I still find it worrisome.

*Edited to fix link

Helix said:

nuclear is a lot better than fossil fuels. i'm hoping that we put some research money into thorium, which from what i've read seems to be a better technology.

Click to expand...

Why not SOLAR? Local solar. PV panels on every rooftop. No more grid. Worldwide. Gov't sponsored and subsidized startup. Makes jobs locally. Who'd a thunk it? Jobs are local! Generates new monies locally. Saves monies in local economies. Saved monies likely spent in local economies. Why does that word "LOCAL" keep popping up? Is there a problem with Centralized Distribution of Energy?

DaveFagan said:

Why not SOLAR? Local solar. PV panels on every rooftop. No more grid. Worldwide. Gov't sponsored and subsidized startup. Makes jobs locally. Who'd a thunk it? Jobs are local! Generates new monies locally. Saves monies in local economies. Saved monies likely spent in local economies. Why does that word "LOCAL" keep popping up? Is there a problem with Centralized Distribution of Energy?

Click to expand...

solar and renewables are an important piece of the puzzle, too. they're building a windfarm outside my town, and it's absolutely awesome. i ride out sometimes to check out the progress. nuclear is also good for producing a lot of power, and that's what we need. i vote all of the above.

Baralis said:

Either I suppose

Fukushima Update | Ground under Fukushima Unit 4 sinking, structure on verge of complete collapse


While it may be a bit alarmist I still find it worrisome.

*Edited to fix link

Click to expand...

Ok, I disagree with the premise that it is impossible to do anything if something goes wrong the world is screwed. Fukishima had an extraordinary set of circumstances to an island dependent on nuclear power for it's energy since it has basically no natural energy resources of it's own. If there were any country that should be scared of nuclear power, they would certainly be it.

Also, whenever someone references most or many scientists without referencing which ones, I tend to disregard the statement as being from someone with an agenda. Also, since it was said by someone named Murita, who is not identified, all the more so. Is it serious, no doubt.

AliHajiSheik said:

Ok, I disagree with the premise that it is impossible to do anything if something goes wrong the world is screwed. Fukishima had an extraordinary set of circumstances to an island dependent on nuclear power for it's energy since it has basically no natural energy resources of it's own. If there were any country that should be scared of nuclear power, they would certainly be it.

Also, whenever someone references most or many scientists without referencing which ones, I tend to disregard the statement as being from someone with an agenda. Also, since it was said by someone named Murita, who is not identified, all the more so. Is it serious, no doubt.

Click to expand...

I was referring to major catastrophes similar to what may happen to Fukushima Daiichi. The material is so radioactive and dangerous that we are simply unable to repair or deal with it. Look at Chernobyl, decades later we are still unable to do anything other then bury/cover it and hope that in the future we develop a way to fix it. In the mean time it still leaks radiation into the environment rendering anything close uninhabitable in any sort of safe manner.

I have followed the Fuku story very closely since it happened, in fact I cancelled a trip to Japan that was scheduled two weeks after. Before I was pro-nuke, now I'm adamantly against it.

Japan has radiated it's people and country, it continues to radiate them everyday and will continue to do so for some time. The effects, particularly in health, will be felt for a couple hundred years. One would think of all countries Japan would be prepared to deal with such a disaster but as has been shown, they have no clue, before or after.

Mankind does not have the intelligence, knowledge, attitude or presence of mind to deal with nuclear energy. Maybe some time in the future, but not now.

Helix said:

solar and renewables are an important piece of the puzzle, too. they're building a windfarm outside my town, and it's absolutely awesome. i ride out sometimes to check out the progress. nuclear is also good for producing a lot of power, and that's what we need. i vote all of the above.

Click to expand...

True story of windfarms in New York State. Initially, multimillionaires are given a tax break to develop windfarms. You pay attention and then decide if it is Green energy and I am a registered Green, an environmentalist with a solar patent. I am prejudiced toward Green energy. First the wind farms are allowed a five-year amortization for the initial investment and that is multi-millions. That means they can write the entire investment off on their tax returns in five years. Second, the wind doesn't necessarily blow when you need the power and there is no storage capability. The gas and steam turbines making the power that the wind turbines would replace are designed to staay on for 10-20 year intervals, so you don't shut them down. I believe you can reduce fuel input to lower power but I'm not certain. So even as you produce the wind power the need may not be accessible for your supply. Nevertheless for 10 years NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) guarantees to pay for every kilowatt generated, even if it does not go into the grid and a lot of it won't. An accelerated write down plus this guarantee to buy energy that is not used is what makes wind farms profitable. The status quo of Electrical Energy distribution utilities accepts this because the electric that is used is distributed through their grid and they make another profit. Win-win for big money investors. Win-win for the existing grid. The loser is the taxpaying public. If you develop thousands of small wind generators coupled with battery backup at a local level you get true efficiency, localized investment, localized savings, localized jobs, localized maintenance and the distribution grid (another big money operation) bites the weenie. Needless to say, I am not a fan of big windfarms, but I am absolutely a proponent of wind, solar, biomass, whatever, at a LOCAL level.

spanky said:

I have followed the Fuku story very closely since it happened, in fact I cancelled a trip to Japan that was scheduled two weeks after. Before I was pro-nuke, now I'm adamantly against it.

Japan has radiated it's people and country, it continues to radiate them everyday and will continue to do so for some time. The effects, particularly in health, will be felt for a couple hundred years. One would think of all countries Japan would be prepared to deal with such a disaster but as has been shown, they have no clue, before or after.

Mankind does not have the intelligence, knowledge, attitude or presence of mind to deal with nuclear energy. Maybe some time in the future, but not now.

Click to expand...

This is true and especially acknowledging the technical capabilites and work ethic of the Japanese. If it is a problem for them, it is as large or larger a problem for any other group, corporation, country, or whatever. The Japanese are technically sophisticated, brave, self sacrificing, and committed. They don't have a solution. Maybe prayer, long term. Good fortune, kharma, short term with no earthquake.

I'll tell you another thing, the only thing that saved Japan from it being a complete and total disaster is the prevailing winds which blow west to east 95% of the time...out to sea. If the PWs were east to west everything from there down to maybe Kyoto would be radiated to a degree it would call for evacuation...Tokyo would be a ghost town.

And let's not even talk about the reaction from China and Korea.

DaveFagan said:

This is true and especially acknowledging the technical capabilites and work ethic of the Japanese. If it is a problem for them, it is as large or larger a problem for any other group, corporation, country, or whatever. The Japanese are technically sophisticated, brave, self sacrificing, and committed. They don't have a solution. Maybe prayer, long term. Good fortune, kharma, short term with no earthquake.

Click to expand...

Agreed Dave, and that's my point. The Japanese were completely unprepared to handle this kind of crisis, what hope can we have for us or even the Germans, much less second world countries like Pakistan, N Kora or Iran?

IMO the only way nuclear power is safe is if it is 500-1000 feet underground but that kind of engineering might make it economically unfeasible.

spanky said:

Agreed Dave, and that's my point. The Japanese were completely unprepared to handle this kind of crisis, what hope can we have for us or even the Germans, much less second world countries like Pakistan, N Kora or Iran?

IMO the only way nuclear power is safe is if it is 500-1000 feet underground but that kind of engineering might make it economically unfeasible.

Click to expand...

Nuclear power has never been economically feasible. It is always built with gov't loans or guarantees because banks will not finance Nukes. The liability issue has always been the reason. Nevertheless, once online the distribution grid profits, just like with Iraq's OIL or Libya's OIL or any distributed energy. The grid is the problem, not the solution. The "grid" meaning overhead or underground wires, piplines, refineries, tankers, any means of transport moving energy. That is the area to monopolize from a business standpoint with max profits and minimal liabilities.

My wife worked on developing safety critical computer software. I worked in developing 99.999%, 5 nines, total failure resistant hardware. There was always resistance from American management to take short cuts that risked having the stuff meet specifications. In addition certain cultures had an easier time trading meeting the requirements for reduced development time, testing, cost, etc. The worst culture in my experience is the Indian followed closely by the Chinese.

Baralis said:

I was just reading up on recent developments (or lack of) the other day. A question crossed my mind, why would man attempt to use something so dangerous that if something went wrong we were totally screwed and nothing man can to can fix it? The only answer I came up with is GREED. Who cares that we risk humanity and world health if we can make mad cash in the process! It really is sad mankind is willing to stoop so low.

Click to expand...

Nuclear power has a lower death rate per kWh than solar power.


Read that sentence again.

DaveFagan said:

Nuclear power has never been economically feasible. It is always built with gov't loans or guarantees because banks will not finance Nukes. The liability issue has always been the reason. Nevertheless, once online the distribution grid profits, just like with Iraq's OIL or Libya's OIL or any distributed energy. The grid is the problem, not the solution. The "grid" meaning overhead or underground wires, piplines, refineries, tankers, any means of transport moving energy. That is the area to monopolize from a business standpoint with max profits and minimal liabilities.

Click to expand...

The banks don't finance it because of regulatory red tape, mostly. It slows down and stalls projects way too much, making costs balloon. If we streamlined the process properly, it would cost far less.

And still be the safest form of energy that exists.

Deuce said:

Nuclear power has a lower death rate per kWh than solar power.


Read that sentence again.



The banks don't finance it because of regulatory red tape, mostly. It slows down and stalls projects way too much, making costs balloon. If we streamlined the process properly, it would cost far less.

And still be the safest form of energy that exists.

Click to expand...

If I were you, I'd check my breathing tube. Must be under a lot of sand or deeply impacted. The banks have never financed Nukes. It's not about red tape. It is about the potential for catastrophic liability costs relating to malfunction, human error and eventual bankruptcy. If I'm a Nuke Corporation and my Nuke starts costing me more than it's making, I'm filing bankruptcy and that is the real world. Now the cleanup, decontamination, etc., is the public's problem and I can start another investment. That's why we have Corporations, to reduce liabilities. See how that works? After the profits are gone, bail, bankrupt, sayonara. Real world.

DaveFagan said:

News From AP | TBO.com=

"About 200,000 tons of radioactive water - enough to fill more than 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools - are being stored in hundreds of gigantic tanks built around the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. Operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has already chopped down trees to make room for more tanks and predicts the volume of water will more than triple within three years."

"Nuclear engineer and college lecturer Masashi Goto said the contaminated water buildup poses a long-term health and environmental threat. He worries that the radioactive water in the basements may already be getting into the underground water system, where it could reach far beyond the plant, possibly the ocean or public water supplies."

"Some of the water ran into the ocean, raising concerns about contamination of marine life and seafood. Waters within a 20-kilometer (12-mile) zone are still off-limits, and high levels of contamination have been found in seabed sediment and fish tested in the area."

If another earthquake is still a possibility, and a disastrous one, do you feel reassured?

Is enough being done?

Did this information surprise anyone?

What does this imply about nuke power long term?

Click to expand...

An important question is HOW radioactive is this water?

Barely enough to be TECHNICALLY considered a hazard, or is it REALLY radioactive?

If you immersed yourself in it, how many millirads per hour would you get? Got to get up to a pretty decent stack of millirads to really be dangerous.

Details matter. Lots of things are radioactive, like the ash in your fireplace.... just not radioactive enough to be an actual hazard.

DaveFagan said:

If I were you, I'd check my breathing tube. Must be under a lot of sand or deeply impacted. The banks have never financed Nukes. It's not about red tape. It is about the potential for catastrophic liability costs relating to malfunction, human error and eventual bankruptcy. If I'm a Nuke Corporation and my Nuke starts costing me more than it's making, I'm filing bankruptcy and that is the real world. Now the cleanup, decontamination, etc., is the public's problem and I can start another investment. That's why we have Corporations, to reduce liabilities. See how that works? After the profits are gone, bail, bankrupt, sayonara. Real world.

Click to expand...

The cost of a nuclear plant went up by a factor of 30 in a 15 year period, from the 1970s to the late 1980s. Why?

Goshin said:

An important question is HOW radioactive is this water?

Barely enough to be TECHNICALLY considered a hazard, or is it REALLY radioactive?

If you immersed yourself in it, how many millirads per hour would you get? Got to get up to a pretty decent stack of millirads to really be dangerous.

Details matter. Lots of things are radioactive, like the ash in your fireplace.... just not radioactive enough to be an actual hazard.

Click to expand...

Actually, everything is radioactive.

I wouldn't choose to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant but I think they're relatively safe overall.

Nuclear power has been around for almost a century with few real incidents.

Donahue said:

I wouldn't choose to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant but I think they're relatively safe overall.

Nuclear power has been around for almost a century with few real incidents.

Click to expand...

Except you know, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The present Chernobyl exclusion (no entry) zone to this day after 26 years continues to be approx 20-40 miles around the plant, that's a a total area of around 20-30k square miles. Chernobyl got lucky because it was in the middle of no where, Fukushima got lucky in that the prevailing winds blew much of the radiation out to sea (or they just dumped it in the ocean) but many, most reactors won't have that luxury.

Can you imagine if San Onofre has an earthquake? Buh bye LA, orange county and San Diego.