Oh Japan, not again :( - Island in Chaos

[Synergy]

Poor Japan. Here are some photos which dramatically depict the devastation there.

 

photos

 

before and after satellite photos

 

Those of us who live on the west coast of America, also along the jittery Pacific ring of fire, should find this sobering. Seattle here is considered due for a quake of around this size, as much as 9.0 or more, according to local geological records and known fault lines. I already experienced Mt. St. Helens blowing up in my lifetime. I hope for no more disasters here (or anywhere, but that just isn't possible.)

 

-S-

[Slawbug]

Yeah, I have been preoccupied with Japan all week, horrified, unable to stop watching the news.

[Erebus the Black]

Did the reactors in Japan have a Nuclear Meltdown?

Where I am from they just say some of the rods melted, which is unclear to me whether this actually means a meltdown or not.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

Did the reactors in Japan have a Nuclear Meltdown?
Where I am from they just say some of the rods melted, which is unclear to me whether this actually means a meltdown or not.

What I heard was that the water vaporized, exposing the incredibly hot fuel rods to elemental hydrogen, which then exploded violently blasting a hole in the containment dome. The remaining superheated steam with boo coo vaporized UO2 was then exposed to the atmosphere and that's absolutely not good. On the other hand, that sounds almost exactly like what happened at Chernobyl, so I may be getting those two confused, since I doubt that Japan has suddenly descended into Soviet-level incompetence overnight. I have faith that they should be able to get things under control, and that it won't turn out as bad as Chernobyl, but it may, and Japan has a lot more people a lot more concentrated around this particular plant than was the case in the USSR, so it could potentially be orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl.

[Sudanna]

I think that the earthquake and tsunami would go a long way towards excusing possible incompetence. . .

[Slawbug]

It's complicated. Short version: there are numerous compounding issues, and the situation is ongoing. General international consensus appears to be that the situation will end up being worse than Three Mile Island, but not as bad as Chernobyl. This means that it is unlikely to impact distant locations, and impact on locations outside the exclusion zone (~20 mile radius) will be minor and not long-lasting.

 

However, things could turn out slightly better, or worse, depending on how current efforts go and on what the state of the fuel storage pools turns out to be.

[Slawbug]

Dantius: The main reason scientists say it will not be as bad as Chernobyl is that the reactor is of a different design. Chernobyl's radiation particles were large and were propelled high into the sky by the graphite fire. Even in a worst-case scenario, the design of the Fukushima reactors involves smaller radiation particles, no graphite, and no way for them to be so dramatically distributed.

 

But, yes, if things get unexpectedly worse, the proximity to populated areas like Tokyo is a concern. To be clear, we're talking about causing an increase in thyroid cancer over the next few decades, not mass radiation sickness, so it's an issue of possibly adding on to the earthquake deaths, not making the disaster orders of magnitude worse. This is one reason other countries are pulling their citizens out of Japan -- better safe than sorry.

 

Japan, of course, has no practical way to evacuate large cities, particularly given the losses to infrastructure and resources caused by the earthquake. But there does not appear to be serious danger at the moment.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

photos

before and after satellite photos

In a word: Wow.

What amazes me most is when I heard that the quake moved the island of Honshu (or at least portions of it) by as much as eight feet. That's a HUGE amount of energy released.

Quote:

I already experienced Mt. St. Helens blowing up in my lifetime.

I was alive for that one, but I was too young to remember it.

Quote:

I hope for no more disasters here (or anywhere, but that just isn't possible.)

Wishful thinking, but in a good way. I think the only way we'll live on a disaster-free planet is when it's no longer geologically active.

[Lilith]

the real tragedy is what this has done to my stock in uranium mining companies

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

the real tragedy is what this has done to my stock in uranium mining companies

I'd recommend transferring those assets to US private defense subcontractors- Boeing's been doing great recently!

Cost-plus is a wonderful thing for investors. Taxpayers, not so much.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

the real tragedy is what this has done to my stock in uranium mining companies

Buy more, they'll turn around after the next refinery explosion.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Originally Posted By: Lilith

the real tragedy is what this has done to my stock in uranium mining companies

Buy more, they'll turn around after the next refinery explosion.

Yeah, I'm doing that right now because the public have short memories and I'm convinced a lot of the price drop is panic selling. One serious but not catastrophic industrial accident caused by one of the worst earthquakes in history is not going to mean the end of nuclear power.

[Synergy]

To put the "nuclear disaster" in some perspective, Japan has 75 nuclear reactors, having no native coal or oil resources of its own. One of these reactors was somewhat damaged by the largest recorded quake to hit Japan, and it is one of their oldest and least quake-resistant reactors. Nuclear power is risky (so is oil—cough-ExxonBP-cough), but overall, I'd say Japan's done a pretty careful job of design and precaution for their nuclear facilities.

 

-S-

[Slawbug]

I'd agree with that assessment. PRETTY careful. I'd also say that "pretty careful" is not adequate for most any large adequate engineering task, let alone something with the potential to cause devastation over a wide area.

 

Don't get me wrong: I think nuclear power is great. (I grew up on SimCity; I have to.) But the fact remains that some (not all, but some) of the problems Fukushima is experiencing result from design flaws that American engineers foresaw, and complained about, when this model of reactor was first designed and used, which was decades ago in the U.S.

[Synergy]

Maybe Japan, and the world in general, needs to look at decommissioning or rebuilding older plants like these that have been determined to be not safe enough—before the next disaster strikes. It's all so crazy-expensive. I keep waiting for the 21st century discovery of some miracle energy source that makes power cheap and safe for everyone.

 

-S-

[keira]

Here's my question--we test(ed) nukes underground so radiation didn't get all over the place, so why couldn't they just build a massive nuclear plant in a Cheyenne Mountain-esqe complex? Sure it would be expensive at first, but if there's an extra underground fortress laying around from the Cold War, it could help offset costs. If things get to bad you can just evacuate any staff that's there, close the gigantic blast doors, and monitor the situation from outside.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Do you know those huge towers in nuclear plants? The ones with huge amounts of steam billowing out of them? It's hard to release steam from underground. There has to be some large vent between the plant and the atmosphere. There are probably numerous other issues that I don't know about.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: He fined Angle is trying to kill

Here's my question--we test(ed) nukes underground so radiation didn't get all over the place, so why couldn't they just build a massive nuclear plant in a Cheyenne Mountain-esqe complex? Sure it would be expensive at first, but if there's an extra underground fortress laying around from the Cold War, it could help offset costs. If things get to bad you can just evacuate any staff that's there, close the gigantic blast doors, and monitor the situation from outside.

You know those giant cooling towers that power plants have? Those have to vent to the outside air so that the whole plant doesn't turn into an oven.

edit: oh my god how was i beaten to this

[Slawbug]

What was that miracle energy plant in SimCity 2000 -- Microwave Plants, right? How the heck did that work?

[Synergy]

Until recently, the only SimCity game I played was the old Mac Classic original version in black and white long ago.

 

I just ordered SimCity IV with Rush Hour for Mac. I've played it before, a bit, very addictive. They have gazillions of mods and additions on sites like Simtropolis, which you can add into the game. You can install cool and friendly inventions like waste-to-energy plants which dump all your trash into a hole into the center of the earth and convert it into clean power, or thermal energy plants, and special air-cleaning poles and all kinds of fun, but ridiculous stuff. In the main game, they have very clean solar array plants as the cleanest energy source. You start off with windmills or black-smoke spewing coal plants.

 

Today's fantasy and science fiction could be tomorrow's reality. It all starts as someone's imaginations, dreams, and wishes.

 

-S-

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

wishes

As soon as we find out where you've stashed the lamps, Syn, we'll get working on the future.

[Synergy]

The oil-burning ones?

 

-S-

[*i]

Quote:

What I heard was that the water vaporized, exposing the incredibly hot fuel rods to elemental hydrogen, which then exploded violently blasting a hole in the containment dome. The remaining superheated steam with boo coo vaporized UO2 was then exposed to the atmosphere and that's absolutely not good. On the other hand, that sounds almost exactly like what happened at Chernobyl, so I may be getting those two confused, since I doubt that Japan has suddenly descended into Soviet-level incompetence overnight.

Dantius, I'm afraid you have misheard. This accident is far more in common with Three Mile Island than Chernobyl.

Here's the deal with Fukushima. The fourth largest earthquake in recorded history occurred and was more severe than what most geophysicists were predicting. The reactor survived the earthquake just fine, but the resultant tsunami was several meters higher than what was predicted probable. This took out the ability of the operators to cool the plant. Because of this, after several hours the water started to boil and the fuel heated to the point where the zirconium tubes holding it had a chemical reaction with the steam. This last part is what happened at Three Mile Island.

This chemical reaction released hydrogen gas, which ignited and caused an explosion destroying the reactor buildings. Note that the reinforced concrete containers that hold the reactors appear to be intact still. This reaction also damaged the fuel, causing radioactive material to enter the steam, which is vented to relieve pressure, releasing radioactivity. If the containment continues to hold (which appears likely at this juncture), there should be little chance of radiation exposure offsite large enough to impact human health, exactly like Three Mile Island. Of course, things have got plenty more complicated because radioactivity is high enough at the site to interfere with accident mitigation efforts.

The Chernobyl accident occurred because the reactor entered a configuration where an uncontrolled chain reaction occurred, rapidly overheating the fuel and causing the steam to expand creating an explosion. This was over in less than a second. Since there was no containment like at either Three Mile Island or Fukushima, the reactor became exposed to the environment when its building was destroyed. The energy density of the event was great enough to cause the reactor to ignite and fires carried radioactive byproducts into the environment. This is very different than what you see here.

Hope this helps clarify the differences between them and what is really going on from the information we have.

[VCH]

The fun part about Sim-city was all the ways you could destroy the city.

[Ephesos]

I would also like to point out that Japan has suffered earthquakes and tsunamis in the past, but ultimately in a country that depends on nuclear power, it took a 9.0 earthquake, a freakin' tsunami, and a shipping error (replacement backup generators) to cause a problem that, as *i said, is nothing like Chernobyl.

 

On the whole, I'd say they've done a good job, and overall it's just a horrible act-of-your-choice-of-deity that nobody could have foreseen. And it saddens me that it will likely set back acceptance of nuclear power in the United States by a decade. The degree to which the troubles at the reactor have been exaggerated is appalling, particularly considering how the disaster that caused it did far more damage and took many more lives. Can't see the horrifying forest for the one slightly crooked tree.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Ephesos

On the whole, I'd say they've done a good job, and overall it's just a horrible act-of-your-choice-of-deity that nobody could have foreseen. And it saddens me that it will likely set back acceptance of nuclear power in the United States by a decade. The degree to which the troubles at the reactor have been exaggerated is appalling, particularly considering how the disaster that caused it did far more damage and took many more lives. Can't see the horrifying forest for the one slightly crooked tree.

i think part of the problem is the way news media works: we already have a rough idea of how bad the earthquake as a whole is, which pretty much makes it not-news outside of japan. the reactor failure could either get worse or not get worse depending on what happens next, which makes it news.

btw eph City of Hope wrapped up a while ago so you might want to update your sig/the AIMhack website page for it

[Slawbug]

*i: I notice that you commented on the reactors, but not the spent fuel pools. For the last several days, most reports have commented that the reactors seem relatively under control, but there is more concern about the spent fuel pools. What do you think about the problems with the pools?

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

What was that miracle energy plant in SimCity 2000 -- Microwave Plants, right? How the heck did that work?

They were Fusion plants.
The Microwave plants worked by sending huge solar collectors into geocentric orbit and transmitting the resulting electricity as a microwave beam to a relay station planet side. This is even more dangerous than a nuclear plant as if the beam misses the relay station or is diverted by an enemy vehicle it can cook a huge area and it won't stop until something is done to shut it down or correct its course.

Was it only for me, or did the first nuclear plant you build in SimCity always have a meltdown?

And btw how is a nuclear meltdown defined?
because :

Originally Posted By: newsdaily

Forces helicopters made runs with baskets of water in a desperate attempt to cool exposed fuel rods believed to have already partly melted down.

[Synergy]

Here's an in-depth article on the entire scenario and reaction to the Japan nuclear plant crisis. A previous source I read about the number of reactors in Japan must have been incorrect, as this article states they have 55, not 75 reactors.

 

article here

 

-S-

[*i]

The reason I did not comment on the spent fuel pools is that there has been little consistent information regarding them. Unit 4 has been most a concern and I'm annoyed that TEPCO is not providing much information -- this could be because the area may still be too radioactive to inspect. From what I've gathered they have been doing their best to refill them via water cannons and helicopter drops. As to how much damage they may have suffered from being exposed (it is pretty clear they were in unit 4) it is still unclear.

 

The good news is they generate a lot less heat than the fuel in the reactor and should be easier to cool. Bad news is these early designs did not do a great job of hardening them like the reactor. I suspect the large concentrations of radioactivity at the plant may have been from the spent fuel in unit 4 overheating, but this is speculation admittedly.

 

Overall, things do appear to be settling down. Radiation levels appear to be dropping, which is very good. This may indicate they have been able to quench the spent fuel, but, again, speculation here. Electric power is being close to being restored at Unit 2 and the other units should follow within a few days.

 

Overall I would rate this as much worse than Three Mile Island, but far, far less damaging than Chernobyl. From radiation levels I've seen outside the plant, it is highly unlikely there will be any negative health impacts for those outside the plants. We do not have dose reports on those within the plant, so I'm not going to try and speculate on that.

 

Hope this helps a little. I'll be trying to get more information for you guys over the next few days.

 

EDIT: I should add that we are not out of the woods quite yet on this. We do have plenty of good signs, however, in that the news in the last day and a half has been generally positive.

[Erebus the Black]

It's funny you should say it seems worse than three mile isle as the article reports that Japan's nuclear safety agency said the Fukushima incident/disaster/catastrophe/accident (which ever you prefer) is a 4 while 3-man isle is a 5. However that was on Sunday and perhaps your assessment is post Sunday.

 

p.s. I just found out a completely new meaning for the JNES acronym

[*i]

It has been upgraded within the last two days from a 4 to a 5, which makes sense.