Japan earthquake and tsunami warning

[Seraph]

I heard someone (on the news) call this the second worst Nuclear crisis ever. After 3 Mile Island... my parents went balistic.

that's a really biased way of saying it. Yes, its in the top five, because there are barely five nuclear reactor incidents in history. Its worse than 3MI, because Three Mile Island was almost a non-event, and no radiation was ever actually released in the 3 Mile Island incident.

Chernobyl was the worst accident in history, but then, it takes active effort to **** up a reactor as badly as chernobyl was. Even if every single thing that could possibly go wrong Goes Wrong at fukushima, it will never be as bad as chernobyl.

[Shalist]

MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering Nuclear Information Hub:

I was a navy nuke for 10 years (recently separated), and after poking around for a while, I found a site with gobs of specific up-to-date, 'behind the scenes' information on Japan's nuclear troubles, maintained by none other than MIT's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (students). It explains what people in the media are talking about, and also gives a lot of specific information. Unlike most media outlets, they tend to focus on what's happened, and are a bit light on the speculation.

I mention this since "media" and "nuclear" don't really...mix well. Hopefully everyone knows not to get news about anything important, nuclear or otherwise, from the 24/7 networks, though...

edit:

More updates (Nuclear Energy Institute), FAQs, etc

[St.Sinner]

I've heard that many of the news crews are pulling out of Tokyo. This can't be good.

They've started water-bombing the nuclear reactor with military helicopters, and police are using water cannons to spray from the ground. I feel so deeply for these people at the reactor. Whatever the fallout from this nuclear crisis will be to the general surrounding population, it seems almost certain that these folks fighting to prevent the meltdown are already exposed to extremely high levels of radiation and may deal with the consequences long after the country recovers.

[Maxios]

I heard the guy who made Pokemon got killed in the tsunami

Edit: JUst heard they found him alive a couple days ago

[Erloas]

it seems almost certain that these folks fighting to prevent the meltdown are already exposed to extremely high levels of radiation and may deal with the consequences long after the country recovers.

From everything I've read, that simply is not the case. They have monitors checking constantly and they pull people out if the levels get too high. And if I remember right, most of the levels are noticeably higher then background radiation, its still not levels anywhere near causing acute issues and a day might be the equivalent of a months worth of background radiation which is only an issue if it takes them weeks to get this under control.

I can't find the article at the moment, but it was putting into perspective the safety risks of nuclear power compared to more traditional sources of power. I think it was something like 19 to 1 for serious injuries in coal production to nuclear production after factoring in the respective sizes of the industries. I think they said the only person to die at the nuclear plant so far was caused by a crane falling on them. And while a radiation exposure, while being very rare, could potentially cause long term harm to many people, most other forms of energy do actually constantly release particles that cause long term harm to many people.

[Serpentine]

The nineMSN news page always has some dodgy little poll going, with a "Yes/No" answer. Today's my answer is too complicated for me to answer with either of those, so I'm answering it here, instead

Should all Australians leave Japan?
I think it depends. If they can help, with the clean-up and everything, then no, I think they should stay if they want to. If they can't help in any meaningful way then it might be more useful for them to leave and thus relieve Japan of a little bit of resource drain and people to worry about. Especially if they're just visiting, anyway. But mostly, it's purely a case-by-case issue.

[Zeb The Troll]

The nineMSN news page always has some dodgy little poll going, with a "Yes/No" answer. Today's my answer is too complicated for me to answer with either of those, so I'm answering it here, instead

Should all Australians leave Japan?
I think it depends. If they can help, with the clean-up and everything, then no, I think they should stay if they want to. If they can't help in any meaningful way then it might be more useful for them to leave and thus relieve Japan of a little bit of resource drain and people to worry about. Especially if they're just visiting, anyway. But mostly, it's purely a case-by-case issue.

Seems to me, then, that the answer is "no". Not all Australians should leave.

[Haruki-kun]

Seems to me, then, that the answer is "no". Not all Australians should leave.

Ah. Discrete mathematics and logical thinking. I like that.

[St.Sinner]

From everything I've read, that simply is not the case. They have monitors checking constantly and they pull people out if the levels get too high. And if I remember right, most of the levels are noticeably higher then background radiation, its still not levels anywhere near causing acute issues and a day might be the equivalent of a months worth of background radiation which is only an issue if it takes them weeks to get this under control.

I can't find the article at the moment, but it was putting into perspective the safety risks of nuclear power compared to more traditional sources of power. I think it was something like 19 to 1 for serious injuries in coal production to nuclear production after factoring in the respective sizes of the industries. I think they said the only person to die at the nuclear plant so far was caused by a crane falling on them. And while a radiation exposure, while being very rare, could potentially cause long term harm to many people, most other forms of energy do actually constantly release particles that cause long term harm to many people.

You reckon? I do hope that's right. As one not well-versed in nuclear physics, I am trying to piece together some understanding of the situation through reading various reports and expert opinions. The reports were saying the levels at the plant were "dangerously high", apparently high enough that they found it necessary to pull everybody out for a while a few hours ago. As I understand, the reason they didn't start the water dumping earlier was due to the radiation levels being deemed too dangerous. Now they're back in, so one can only hope that the levels could have dropped pretty significantly in those intervening hours.

Hearing that the news media are pulling back from Tokyo spooked me a bit. After all, these are the same people who run into war zones and the like, and Tokyo is still 250 km away from the Fukushima site. The emergency crew at the reactor I'm sure have equipment and protective gear that the general public don't, but still, it's highly unnerving. I desperately, desperately hope that you're right.

Seems to me, then, that the answer is "no". Not all Australians should leave.

Not to mention, some Australians are only there as part of the rescue effort to begin with. Poll resolved! Although yeah, I reckon tourists and visitors are probably better off leaving if they can, unless they have particular expertise in dealing with earthquake-tsunami-nuclear meltdown combos.

[Brother Oni]

As I understand, the reason they didn't start the water dumping earlier was due to the radiation levels being deemed too dangerous. Now they're back in, so one can only hope that the levels could have dropped pretty significantly in those intervening hours.

Well the local radiation count is apparently low and it only spikes every now and again, due to emergency venting, something leaking, etc.
As a safety precaution, they just pull the workers back whenever it spikes, but as I understand it, 'dangerous levels' is still far below the instantly lethal level, but a little too close to fatal for their liking.

Given their definition of 'little too close' is '10 hours of exposure to this level of radiation will result in (treatable) radiation sickness', it's not as worrying as the media makes it out to be, but I don't blame them for being very cautious.

Hearing that the news media are pulling back from Tokyo spooked me a bit. After all, these are the same people who run into war zones and the like, and Tokyo is still 250 km away from the Fukushima site.

That's because radiation is indiscriminate.

News crews who 'run into war zones' are often relatively safe - they're clearly unarmed and provided they don't run into the middle of firefights or go stomping around uncleared areas with mines/IEDs, they won't get intentionally shot at.

It'd be better to compare a radiation leak to a hurricane or other natural disaster - their press pass won't protect them from that, so it's sensible to just get out of the way.


In more promising news, they're apparently going to try and connect the plant's coolant systems to the main electricty grid today - if that works and the coolant systems are still intact, then the situation is going to improve rapidly.

[banthesun]

That's because radiation is indiscriminate.

News crews who 'run into war zones' are often relatively safe - they're clearly unarmed and provided they don't run into the middle of firefights or go stomping around uncleared areas with mines/IEDs, they won't get intentionally shot at.

It'd be better to compare a radiation leak to a hurricane or other natural disaster - their press pass won't protect them from that, so it's sensible to just get out of the way.

Also, becoming a Tokyo correspondent has different connotations to being say, a Baghdad correspondent I doubt most of the reporters there are the type to become war correspondents.

Or to take the snarkier route, radiation doesn't really give good footage.
(Note, snark may be influenced by a journalist I saw talking about how he didn't want to go reporting in Tokyo because he was scared of the radiation three days ago when I wanted new reports.)

[Miklus]

Regarding radiation levels, note that the first helicopters turned back because the levels where too high.

The next day (today), the helicopters where equipped with lead plates in the bottom and still they did not stop to hover before dumping the water.

They would probably allow the previously unexposed helicopter pilot to take a dose if it meant that the water was delivered correctly. But instead the helicopters just swooped by. My fear is that letting the helicopter hover for even a short while might leave the pilot unable to complete the mission.

I can find no other explanation for the helicopter behavior. Even at chernobyl, the helicopters hovered.

But of cause that is only the radiation levels just above the reactors. Hopefully the radioactive particles is not escaping into the air. I hope we get some close-up photos soon.

[AslanCross]

Even at chernobyl, the helicopters hovered.

I'm not sure comparing the handling of Chernobyl to the handling of Fukushima is a good idea. There were testimonies of firefighters at the Chernobyl plant handling graphite bricks that came straight out of the reactor core because they didn't know they were dangerously radioactive. That doesn't mean the Fukushima crew should go in and try to put out the fire by hand.

By analogy, just because helicopters hovered at Chernobyl doesn't mean they should at Fukushima.

[AtlanteanTroll]

So, my dad has worked in energy for a long time. He said that dumping water from helicopters would be just about as effective as me getting up on a ladder and peeing to put out a house fire...

[Miklus]

My newspaper says that the helicopter pilots got 100 milliSievert. I don't know if that is true. Journalists and math don't mix.

But if it is true, it is a large dose for only speeding over the reactor. I think symptoms like nausia sets in at 1 Sievert. Without the lead plates, the pilots could have trouble controling the helicopter if they had to stay there any length of time.

This also indicates that the situation is pretty bad. It is at least a six on the screw-up scale.

[Shalist]

http://mitnse.com/ (this site answers all the common questions!)

I read about one worker getting 100 rem (1 sievert) early on, but for the most part their exposure is capped at 25 rem, which is the minimum threshold for acute affects:

Spoiler

Show

There have been about 50 staff engaged in pumping seawater into the reactor cores and primary containment vessels of units 1, 2 and 3. From time to time these need to vent steam, which causes radiation to rise across the site and required the workers to move to a safer location.

Another 130 were also on site, according to reports, including soldiers from the Japan Self Defence Force.

Normally nuclear workers are allowed to receive a dose of 20 millisieverts per year, although in practice they often receive very much less. If that limit is exceeded in any year, the worker cannot undertake nuclear duties for the remainder

In emergency circumstances safety regulators allow workers to receive up to 100 millisieverts with the same conditions applying, that they must leave the site should that limit be reached. The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health effects from radiation become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to connect radiation dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to become apparent.

Under a special allowance from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, workers at Fukushima were permitted doses of up to 250 millisieverts (up to 25 rem). Managers must be careful to make the best use of those experienced workers with the most detailed knowledge and experience of the plant.

...For radiation exposure of less than 50 Rem there is the potential for delayed effects such as non-specific life shortening, genetic effects, fetal effects, and cancer, but little is known about the long term consequences of exposures in this range. For doses less than 25 Rem there is not enough data to determine if such an exposure can cause any long-term effects on human health at all.

As for long-term troubles:

Spoiler

Show

note 1: normal lifetime incidence in U.S. is about 42% (of developing any cancer). The increase in risk, i.e. 1 in 30 for 3,000 mSv (300 rem), changes the 42% to 42.03% chance of getting cancer in the exposed individual's lifetime.

edit: A table with more details on specific affects for large doses.

---

Radiation does two things of consequence. It either messes up DNA (without killing the cell), or it kills the cell. You only see stuff from that list--radiation sickness, etc--with a large, sudden dose, since they're caused by a lot of cells dying in one shot.

Separately, long term affects--ie, cancer / genetic risks--are cumulative over a lifetime, since there's no lower threshold for turning the cancer switch in an individual cell's DNA on, so presumably any amount of radiation, no matter how small, increases your lifetime risk of cancer. (Incidentally, this means that radiation affects cells that divide more frequently--ie, younger/growing people, reproductive organs, bone marrow, hair follicles, etc--than cells that seldom divide, like muscle tissue or nerve cells).

More info on how radiation affects people.

And radiation you get from natural and/or non-nuclear stuff (ie, 8 rem/yr to the lungs from smoking, coal plants giving people 100x the radiation of nuclear plants of similar capacity, how much radiation you get from bananas, planes, playing WoW, etc).

[Killer Angel]

This also indicates that the situation is pretty bad. It is at least a six on the screw-up scale.

Now, they're using water cannons to try to somehow cool the reactor.
If this isn't a desperate measure, I don't know what else is.

[Mina Kobold]

Now, they're using water cannons to try to somehow cool the reactor.
If this isn't a desperate measure, I don't know what else is.

Sounds like they just want to be safe from Hydrogen explosions and short-lived radioactivity to me.

Don't know much about it, though. But since they are also restarting the coolant system it doesn't look like this is too desperate.

[Brother Oni]

This also indicates that the situation is pretty bad. It is at least a six on the screw-up scale.

The situation is serious but stable and has been since yesterday. They've connected up a powerline to the rest of the electricty grid and hope to power up the reactors' coolant systems soon.

Calling it the 'screw-up scale' is unfair on the workers - they didn't ask to be hit by the 5th largest earthquake in recorded history and while mistakes have been made during the handling, all reports currently indicate that everything was done by the book, including the lessons learnt from Chernobyl.

Now, they're using water cannons to try to somehow cool the reactor.
If this isn't a desperate measure, I don't know what else is.

They've been using firetrucks to pump in seawater since the disaster hit as their backup generators failed.

Water cannons (at least the military ones since those are completely enclosed unlike the police ones) were used as it was too dangerous for the workers to get close due to radiation spikes.

The issue is, that there's nothing in standard operating procedure to cover such a contingency at Fukushima. As I understand it, the workers have been innovating non-standard solutions since Monday or Tuesday.

[Killer Angel]

Water cannons (at least the military ones since those are completely enclosed unlike the police ones) were used as it was too dangerous for the workers to get close due to radiation spikes.

I understand that. I'm worried 'cause, if we're at the point that they cannot work on it, how can they repair it?

The issue is, that there's nothing in standard operating procedure to cover such a contingency at Fukushima.

You have a point, here.

[Frozen_Feet]

In my opinion, if it's anything that would be used on a normal fire, it doesn't count as "desperate". Shooting gallons and gallons of water from a distance to cool down something is nothing to bat an eyelid at.

In any case, while terrifying due to its nuclear aspect, the reactor is much less of a disaster than countless oil fires and what not that have been caused in the aftermath.

In any case, calling this a "screw-up" is a misnomer. The only real counter to a disaster of this magnitude would be to never build anything near a coast or a continental line. Following this strategy, most of the world's biggest cities would have to be abandoned.

Human error has played very little part in this catastrophe. Indeed, as has been said several times since the beginning of this thread, it's the opposite; the fact that nothing worse has happened is a testament to remarkable resourcefulness and level of preparation on part of Japanese people.

This is no reason to fear nuclear power. It's a reason to fear earthquakes, period.

[Serpentine]

In my opinion, if it's anything that would be used on a normal fire, it doesn't count as "desperate". Shooting gallons and gallons of water from a distance to cool down something is nothing to bat an eyelid at.

At what point would it be "desperate", then? I mean, specifically, what else could they do, aside from shoot gallons and gallons of water from a distance to cool something down?

[Innis Cabal]

At what point would it be "desperate", then? I mean, specifically, what else could they do, aside from shoot gallons and gallons of water from a distance to cool something down?

Dumping concrete on top of it like they did at Chernobyl would rank up on "Desperate" for me. They're not of course, so I'd suspect we've not yet hit real desperation here.

[Serpentine]

Would that be doable? Is it actually an option in this case?

[Eldan]

It's probably more of a scale question.

I mean, garden hoses would certainly be desperate. These things can put out large fires, that's quite a bit more water, then.

And yes, Concrete can be done. Unless I'm mistaken, they used helicopters for that, too.

[Innis Cabal]

It is doable yes, again they literally dumped concrete into the reactors in Chernobyl by hand. Is it an option? Yes it's an option, it's an option not to do anything. Something doesn't become a non-option just because it's out and out insane. Will they do it? No...because it's quite honestly out and out insane. But that's the kicker and that's why it's desperate. Using a perfectly viable solution of cooling something down by throwing tons of water at it from a long distance away isn't desperate if it's used every day to put out far less worrying problems. It's just a last ditch problem and unconventional. "Desperate" is when you know it's insane and you do it anyway because there are no other options not insane left on the table.

[Eldan]

By hand too?

Wow. I knew they did some pretty brutal things to the workers at Chernobyl (including removing radioactive debris by hand), but that's a new one.

[Serpentine]

Something doesn't become a non-option just because it's out and out insane.

I'm not interested in "will they?", I'm interested in "could they?", in what options they have if water-dumping fails. The further down the alphabet their secondary plans go, the less desperate I'll consider the situation. If the only thing they can practically do is hose it, then yeah, I'd think that's pretty desperate. If that's just Plan B, and they have Plans C-W in reserve, not so much. That's what I want to know.

[Killer Angel]

In my opinion, if it's anything that would be used on a normal fire, it doesn't count as "desperate". Shooting gallons and gallons of water from a distance to cool down something is nothing to bat an eyelid at.

Shooting water at a nuclear reactor to cool down the overheating, is not exactly the same as "treat a normal fire". It cannot absolutely substitute the plant's cooling system.
At best, they're only hoping to cool it down a little, and gain some time to fix the situation in some other way.

Dumping concrete on top of it like they did at Chernobyl would rank up on "Desperate" for me.

For me, that would rank on "we cannot do nothing more. It's game over".
Desperation, comes a little before that point, it's "We're losing... let's try everything, even if unlikely, before surrender, and hope in some big luck"

EDIT:

"Desperate" is when you know it's insane and you do it anyway because there are no other options not insane left on the table.

Yes, now I agree.

[Innis Cabal]

The answer is yes they can. Unfortunately when you ask "Can they" the next question has to be "Will they" or else it really doesn't matter if they -can-. And then comes the reasons why they will or will not. Simply asking "Can they" doesn't answer anything beyond the ability to do something. And when it comes to...anything...that doesn't do you a lick of good.

It would be "Option: We've lost total control of the situation and anything resembling human sanity" but it is an option they very well can undertake. Which would put Option C or "God I sure hope we can dump enough water on these things before we manage to get the power online to take over" far less desperate then anyone is making it out to be.