Japan earthquake and tsunami warning

[paddyfool]

Japan have now raised the INES level of the alert for the Fukushima Daiichi reactors 2 and 3 from level 4 to level 5, the same as Three Mile Island (Chernobyl was a 7). (The stages on the scale are described in this document, with a particularly handy graphic on page 3).

So this does indeed look to be a problem with a wider impact than previously reported. Which is going to be a major worry for those living close by, on top of the wider critical issues for areas of Japan hit by this quake and tsunami of simply getting food (after destruction of ports and roads), staying warm (half a million in temporary accomodation, plus power cuts and disruption of gas supplies), and determining whether their loved ones lived or died.

BTW, if anyone's still confused about just what went wrong at the reactors, this BBC graphic is actually quite helpful.

[Themrys]

I'm not sure nuclear power plants are something that can be changed though. Fossil fuel power stations create nasty pollutants that are affecting the planet as a whole and acting as a bigger ticking time bomb than nuclear power plants are. Renewable power sources generally rely on locations with some places in the world being unable to do much with them (I doubt a solar plant would generate much power in England) and even then they are very expensive for the amount of power they actually produce. Then you get to a densely populated country like Japan where they don't have a lot space to build power plants but need a lot of power. What choices do we have apart from nuclear power in these situations?

I don't know about Japan, but other countries have other options and could export electricity to Japan.

I won't dwell on why those dangers are risked unnecessarily (as I believe they are in many countries) because that would concern politics...let it suffice to say that most countries use a lot more energy than necessary and only about 20 percent or less of energy comes from nuclear plants.


Fossil fuel power stations are not a ticking time bomb as dangerous as nuclear power plants are. As much as I fear the global climate change, it doesn't really affect life in general. Sea creatures used to warm temperatures would be fine with it.
Humans not so much, obviously, which is why I prefer regenerative energy sources. But you can't really say the climate change is more dangerous.

[Lord of the Helms]

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.

I think it can be called a screw-up, since the plant apparently withstood the earthquake quite fine - but could not deal with the power failing (among other things, the first set of emergency generators failed due to the tsumani even though they should have been prepared for just that case, and while they had additional emergency generators on hand, they lacked the right cables to connect them). Add in the fact that the reactor with the worst troubles should have been shut down for good at the beginning of this year but had his lifetime extended just last month, and it doesn't look like only mother nature is at fault here.

On the plus side, we can be happy that three of the six reactors had been shut down for maintenance for a longer period of time already when the Earthquake hit. I can only hope they can contain the fallout as well as possible, what with Japan's extremely high population density leaving so many people at risk if any higher quantities get in-land via air or water.

[Killer Angel]

Fossil fuel power stations are not a ticking time bomb as dangerous as nuclear power plants are.

For power stations, I could agree (of course, if you're talking 'bout incidents, and not constant pollution... ), but oil tankers and oil sea platforms, aren't exactly safe...

[Serpentine]

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.

None of this answers my question. At all.
If water pumping fails, what other options are there that they can take? Don't keep quibbling over the exact meaning of "can", please. Just tell me what options they still have left. "I don't know" is acceptable, or even "I don't know, but I'm sure there's more".

[AslanCross]

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.

I completely agree. Had this happened to say, Manila, where I live, the tsunami would have bulldozed hundreds of thousands of homes in slums, swamped our major fuel depot, major cultural heritage sites, and our seat of government (which is conveniently located along the city's major river). The major river is clogged with trash and industrial waste, which will only aggravate the problem. It would probably mean the wave would fill the city with trash-filled muck.

Disturbingly enough, my place of work is roughly ten kilometers from the coastline. The tsunami went inland as far as ten kilometers, and most of Manila is low-lying.

[Brother Oni]

Things are starting to look up - they think they can power up the coolant systems for reactor 4 by Saturday.

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

We're not yet at the point where they cannot work at it. Personnel were pulled back because of radiation spikes, not general radiation levels.

Shalist has given a very comprehensive overview of what the levels of acceptable radiation are and how much they're being currently exposed to. Note that the exposure levels are inclusive of protective gear - 250 milisiverts would be unacceptable for unprotected people, but is currently acceptable in this disaster for the operators to function in.

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.

Apparently the firemen removing the debris were not aware of the dangers involved, so it wasn't intentional to subject them to that level of exposure.

Thanks to their actions though, they prevented a much greater catastrophe from happening.

I have no doubt that if it came down to it, the workers at Fukushima would probably do the same - it'd be a matter of whether the government or the company would let them.

I can only hope they can contain the fallout as well as possible, what with Japan's extremely high population density leaving so many people at risk if any higher quantities get in-land via air or water.

According to most of the information I've read, most of the fall out will be extremely localised. Only in the absolute worst case (the rods break and start burning plus the reactor housing breaks wide open and start spewing radioactive dust into the air) could it possibly be more widespread, but it looks like they have a contingency plan for that too (dumping the concrete).

None of this answers my question. At all.
If water pumping fails, what other options are there that they can take? Don't keep quibbling over the exact meaning of "can", please. Just tell me what options they still have left. "I don't know" is acceptable, or even "I don't know, but I'm sure there's more".

There are a couple other options I believe - dumping boronic acid into the storage pools will slow down the nuclear reactions. As for the reactors, dowsing them in concrete or getting the coolant systems working.

I believe they're sending up additional firetrucks to help with their current plan of pumping seawater, plus the water cannons are still on hand.

The situation is serious, but currently stable. The longer it stays stable, the better things get as more help and aid get into the country.

[Killer Angel]

We're not yet at the point where they cannot work at it. Personnel were pulled back because of radiation spikes, not general radiation levels.

mmm... yes, that's true, I suppose they're still not screwed.
Let's cross some fingers.

[Haruki-kun]

None of this answers my question. At all.
If water pumping fails, what other options are there that they can take? Don't keep quibbling over the exact meaning of "can", please. Just tell me what options they still have left. "I don't know" is acceptable, or even "I don't know, but I'm sure there's more".

In the worst case scenario, the Fukushima prefecture has to be fully evacuated and everyone living there has to move away. This is the single worst case scenario.

EDIT: That's all I have, really. =/

[AtlanteanTroll]

So, now they're going to try and bury the Power Plant. What?

[AslanCross]

So, now they're going to try and bury the Power Plant. What?

Have you got a source on that? I haven't seen it yet.

[Shalist]

They're using hoses to refill/cool the spent fuel pools, not the reactors (which are tucked away inside the primary containment).


Spent fuel factsheet

Update as of 10:00 A.M. EDT, Friday, March 18:

Spoiler

Show

News Brief, 3/18/11, 10 AM EDT

...Spraying of spent fuel pools at Units 3 and 4 is still underway. Visual inspection of Unit 4’s pool showed water in the pool, and so efforts have been temporarily focused upon Unit 3. While efforts at using helicopters to dump water onto the pools had been largely unsuccessful , army firetrucks used in putting out aircraft fires have been employed with some success. The elite Tokyo Hyper Rescue component of the Tokyo fire department has arrived on scene and is conducting missions of roughly two hours in length, during which they spray the pools for 7-8 minutes, wait for steam to dissipate, and spray again...

More updates.

Spoiler

Show

...Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are in stable condition, with workers continuing to provide seawater cooling into the reactors. Containment integrity is believed to be intact on reactors 1, 2 and 3, and containment building pressures are elevated but are within design limits...

@ Serp:

BBC:

...The Fukushima plant's operator Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) said it was not ruling out the option of entombing the plant in concrete to prevent a radiation leak; a similar method was used at Chernobyl.

While the worse seems to have passed, here's the worst case scenario (The anatomy of a meltdown):

Spoiler

Show

Meltdown

The term meltdown describes melting of the zirconium alloy cladding, and uranium oxide (or mixed oxide, in the case of Unit 3) fuel pellets. These two structures are the first two barriers to fission release, since radioactive fission products normally exist as either solids within the fuel pellet, gases within pores in the fuel pellet, or gases that escape the pellet but remain in the cladding. When a reactor is shut down, these fission products continue to decay, generating heat. This amount of heat is produced at first at 7% of its initial rate, and then decreases as the isotopes responsible for generating it decay away. If this decay heat is not removed by cooling water, the fuel and cladding increase in temperature...

Quick note on one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, Three Mile Island...though there was a small release of radioactivity, 75,000 people were evacuated, and the entire nation was terrified (largely by poor communication and misinformation), ultimately no one was killed, the exposure to people nearby was on par with being a smoker for a month or being a frequent flyer, and the whole incident 'only' cost around $973 million to clean up. Even now, Three Mile Island continues to produce electricity, and will up through 2034 or so.

edit:

Protective gear:

Spoiler

Show

Radiation comes from radioactive stuff, and protective gear just keeps people from getting radioactive stuff on their skin / in their bodies (ie, inhaled), which would increase their radiation exposure as it decayed inside them. It doesn't actually help against energy that's already being emitted, ie from from uncovered fuel rods. For that, you need heavy shielding--every 2" of lead, or 10" of water, will reduce the radiation levels by 10x (4" of lead => 100x, etc). Or distance--double the distance from the source results in the radiation level decreasing by 4x.

Regarding boron:

Spoiler

Show

In other systems, such as a spent fuel pool, mechanisms are in place to prevent criticality. If such a system still achieves criticality, it is called “re-criticality”. Boron and other materials, which absorb neutrons, are in place to make sure that this re-criticality does not occur. The added neutron absorbers substantially increase the rate of loss of neutrons, to ensure a subcritical system.

That is, the 'at power' nuclear chain reaction is fueled by neutrons, and in unusual circumstances (ie, control rods melted, or fuel rods melting and puddling in the bottom of their containment, etc), the boron would ensure a sufficient 'shutdown margin' to ensure that reaction still didn't occur.

Decay heat comes from various longer-lived radionuclides that are created by the chain reaction (fission products, stuff that's irradiated by the neutrons, etc), which continually produce heat/radiation as they decay away. After a few years, they've cooled off enough that they don't need the water anymore.

edit 2: Meant to edit that, not double-post it.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Have you got a source on that? I haven't seen it yet.

Source. I think I saw it somewhere more reliable somewhere earlier...

[KnightDisciple]

Source. I think I saw it somewhere more reliable somewhere earlier...

Let's step back and take a look at the first couple of sentences on that article.

Japanese engineers conceded on Friday that they may have to bury the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant in sand and concrete as a last resort, as officials raised the severity rating of the nuclear crisis.

Please note the parts bolded and underlined. Them reaching the point of burying the reactors like that is by no means a certainty.

As well, Shalist's links show us that comparing something to Three Mile Island should not cause mass panic.

[AslanCross]

Source. I think I saw it somewhere more reliable somewhere earlier...

Well, that is their last resort. I think that was always an option.

[factotum]

Japan have now raised the INES level of the alert for the Fukushima Daiichi reactors 2 and 3 from level 4 to level 5, the same as Three Mile Island (Chernobyl was a 7).

I love the way how the news reports are carefully ignoring that the disaster was actually rated a level 6 a few days ago, so a 5 is still an improvement, even if it's increased again!

[THAC0]

[QUOTE=paddyfool;10579504 the same as Three Mile Island[/QUOTE]

Which is absolutely no reason to panic, given that no real long-term health risks were associated with TMI.

Will it cost $$$ to clean up? Sure.

Are we all going to die? Probably not.

[paddyfool]

I love the way how the news reports are carefully ignoring that the disaster was actually rated a level 6 a few days ago, so a 5 is still an improvement, even if it's increased again!

Some outside commentators, such as the French nuclear agency, have and continue to rate it as a 6. I was just passing on what the Japanese authorities are rating it as, although I'd have to admit there's a real risk they'd play it down.

[Irbis]

First, let me link short anime explaining the situation.

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.

They're morons. Simply. Tokyo is 250 km away and the winds are blowing west, not south. All they risk is equivalent of eating 1/8 of a banana, to put it in more common terms. It's that dangerous.

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.

No. The fact is, they learned nothing. After Three Mile Island, USA updated their cooling systems. Europe did, too. Soviets? Sure. Chernobyl had updated cooling systems, that's why they were able to seal it off with a manual valve.

Now, take a guess which country haven't learned any lessons from both Chernobyl and TMI. Hint - the name starts with 'J'. It literally boggles the mind - a simple manual valve instead of all-electronic system and moving backup diesel generators from the first place that would be hit by tsunami to the roof would have averted most of the trouble. The vulnerabilities were so obvious they were discussed in diplomatic cables released recently - still, nothing was done.

Yet, even with such incompetence, the disaster was minimal. It only proves further that services where safety should be put first before profits shouldn't be handled by private companies, especially incompetent ones. Killer Angel has a point in this.

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.

Innovating? Yes. Because private company that runs the plant is so incompetent. They had outdated reaction schemes and only rarely held drills. Profits first. Also, during first two days, they actively tried to save the plants, before trying to dump them with salt water. I'm not going to comment on the rest of the mistakes they did before they are better documented, but the fact is, during the first 4 days the only ones battling the crisis were Tokyo Power's employees. Had the military been drawn in from the start, almost none of this would have happened.

Part of this stems from Japanese culture - fear of losing face is so strong that workers insist they can handle it, then company insists they can handle it, then Japanese government insists it was a '4' incident when it had been 5-6 all along, all while the situation is steadily becoming worse from inactivity. That's why company operating these plants used to outright falsify records on them.

The fact is that situation isn't that bad, though, for all their incompetence, and 55 year old reactors. This only showcases how safe reactors are.

Compared to this, Soviet operations in Chernobyl were a literal paragon of speed and efficiency, even these unprotected firefighters were sent in because enough suits haven't arrived yet and containing the situation was deemed more important. And it was contained, so effectively that other three reactors next to the destroyed one operated safely for years, there was no two-day delay, no attempts to save the plant, no stupidity, no chain-overload of all 4 plants due to oversights. These things we can laugh on today? They were all attempted to save as much civilians and improve situation as quickly as they could, they hadn't had luxury of sitting on a couch with enough free time to think of better solutions.

I don't know about Japan, but other countries have other options and could export electricity to Japan.

How? Teleport it?

Russia is the only country that has electrical connection, IIRC, and even theirs is so old/weak it can't supply anywhere near the energy needed.

Fossil fuel power stations are not a ticking time bomb as dangerous as nuclear power plants are.

Really. Australia alone generates 20 times (and that is very optimistic assessment) radioactive waste per year into atmosphere from coal burning than Chernobyl did.

Scientific American: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. And, there are tens of thousands of tons of it, not kilograms. Safe?

As much as I fear the global climate change, it doesn't really affect life in general. Sea creatures used to warm temperatures would be fine with it.

Except for 90% that are not used to it, and threatened with extinction.

Humans not so much, obviously, which is why I prefer regenerative energy sources. But you can't really say the climate change is more dangerous.

Regenerative energy sources: cause only 100 to 12.000 more deaths than atomic power per energy unit produced. And that is when you include Chernobyl and fallout from all atomic bombs. Before someone protests, it's because they generate as much electricity as rubbing the cat with silk scarf.

Climate change not dangerous? All that extra energy in atmosphere isn't going to disappear. Raising the temperature by 2 degrees might mean 5-15 Katrina-level tornadoes hitting the shores, from Venezuela to Miami. That would be only a dozen to twenty thousand killed, considering most countries there don't have as good rescue services as USA, and a few hundred billion in $ in damages. Nothing dangerous?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Now, take a guess which country haven't learned any lessons from both Chernobyl and TMI. Hint - the name starts with 'J'. It literally boggles the mind - a simple manual valve instead of all-electronic system and moving backup diesel generators from the first place that would be hit by tsunami to the roof would have averted most of the trouble. The vulnerabilities were so obvious they were discussed in diplomatic cables released recently - still, nothing was done.

GE designed the plant, blame them.

[Traab]

Personally, the emergency at the power plants makes me feel more secure about nuclear power rather than less. I mean the way I look at it, it took an obscenely massive earthquake AND tsunamis, just to do enough damage that the potential for meltdown is there. Two of the worst natural disasters combined, on a plant that apparently wasnt even the best prepared and it STILL didnt cause a chernobyl level event. Thats.... pretty damn impressive. I mean, how many other countries with nuclear plants are located in areas where events like this could happen? By which I mean a double whammy of epic level natural disasters.

[AtlanteanTroll]

America. We have a few out in Cali., and they could have the same thing happen.

[Brother Oni]

That's not to mention the 300+ earthquakes above 5.0 they've had since the big one (I think the biggest was 6. something in the past couple days).

Even if all the faults Irbis highlights are true, Japanese buildings can withstand earthquakes.

Yet, even with such incompetence, the disaster was minimal. It only proves further that services where safety should be put first before profits shouldn't be handled by private companies, especially incompetent ones. Killer Angel has a point in this.

It's still unfair on the workers who stayed though. Remonstrate the company all you like, but it's unfair to detract from they've done.

I'll also highlight that I said 'all reports currently indicate that everything was done by the book'. Since you've obviously have had updated information, my comment will be revised.

[AtlanteanTroll]

That's not to mention the 300+ earthquakes above 5.0 they've had since the big one (I think the biggest was 6. something in the past couple days).

Seperate Earthquakes, or after-shocks?

[Brother Oni]

Seperate Earthquakes, or after-shocks?

I'm not entirely sure - my Japanese isn't that good.

If aftershocks is the more accurate technical term, then go with that.

Edit: My wife says it's daily aftershocks.

[Irbis]

GE designed the plant, blame them.

And? It was Japan who choose to buy the worst design from GE (also private company - btw, the design, save for having a civilian-regulations extra sarcophagus, was in fact much worse than 15-20 year older Soviet reactors). It was Japan that decided to hand their own nuclear power plants to incompetent company. And, finally, it was Japan who choose to not implement lessons learned from TMI and Chernobyl into the plants.

Heck, they didn't even needed to implement them, all they needed to do was to buy European or Soviet reactor, most of them had these safeguards from the start.

And yet, 55 year old reactor, completely obsolete from the point the construction started, hit by two worst recorded disasters held. Yet, it is somehow used to point nuclear power is unsafe. Never mind it would have been long replaced by new, modern reactor if not for all the anti-nuclear protests that force countries to keep old junk working instead of replacing it with new, safer reactors - talk about blind loop

It's still unfair on the workers who stayed though. Remonstrate the company all you like, but it's unfair to detract from they've done.

The workers? Yes, they behaved very professionally. They committed a few screw ups, but as far as I can say, these were all fault of the management. Still, the fact that 50 workers had to deal with the crisis all on their own when it would be averted with a help of a few hundred firefighting/military personnel, and a current crisis plan, says something was very wrong.

By the way, I completely agree with respect to people who risk their own lives to save others, which is why I was... rather not pleased by all the comments about Chernobyl disaster, especially one extremely offensive about their level of training

It was the same in that case - heroism of the workers, screw-ups by the management, but at least in that case they were dealing with something for the first time, yet the answer was orders of magnitude more competent and faster than current response that had at least two warnings to learn from.

[AtlanteanTroll]

And? It was Japan who choose to buy the worst design from GE (also private company - btw, the design, save for having a civilian-regulations extra sarcophagus, was in fact much worse than 15-20 year older Soviet reactors). It was Japan that decided to hand their own nuclear power plants to incompetent company. And, finally, it was Japan who choose to not implement lessons learned from TMI and Chernobyl into the plants.

The plant was built in 1971, 6 years before Chrenobyl. So, yeah. NO. I agree with bolded bit. I guess.

[Miklus]

Ok, it seems that the situation is under control now. Note that the reactors where scambled, the control rods are inserted. They don't need to cool the reactors forever, only until the decay heat wears off. It's been over a week, so I guess the rods are cold now.

Now I hope we will get to see how much radiation escaped. The newspaper reports that milk and spinach in the area have been found to have too much radiation in it. I wonder how long they will have to throw food away. Probably for years. There are still sometimes problems with food after Chernobyl, even as far away as Norway. Some norwegian sheep ate too many mushrooms and got too much radioactivity that way. They had to pospone their slaugther.

I wonder if the farmers and homeowners will sue the company for loss of property vaule?



So what have we learned here? We have learned that if a nuclear reactor loses coolant circulation for whatever reason, even up to one hour after it was scambled, it will suffer a partial meltdown and radioactive steam will have to be vented. This may or may not cause a hydrogen explosion and further complications. The radioactive steam will prevent anyone from coming close to fix the reactor and no one knows what the hell is going on.

Likewise for the spent fuel rod pool. It will heat up, boil off and the rods will catch fire. Radioactive smoke is released directly to the atmosphere.

I am...unimpressed.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Source?

And you should be un-impressed, man-made disasters should do that.

EDIT: Hiroshima wasn't suppose to grow grass for years, it did in 1946.

[unosarta]

The plant was built in 1971, 6 years before Chrenobyl. So, yeah. NO. I agree with bolded bit. I guess.

It was built 6 years before Chernobyl itself was built, but it was actually built 15 years before the accident itself happened.

About the actual earthquakes and such: my Japanese tutor's parents live in Sendai, and she only recently got word that they were okay, since their cell phones weren't working, and they had no power. Her sister lives in Tokyo, and she couldn't get in contact with them for a week.

We are still hoping nothing else bad happens to them.