CNN An 8.8-magnitude earthquake has struck Japan

[Beet]

With all due respect, the most terrifying part was watching cars trying to drive away from it, and not make it. 

First waves should be hitting the North American coast within the hour.

Tsunamis can travel at 600 miles/hour, because the more shallow the water, the faster the wave travels. A car has no chance, it only makes sense if you are using it to reach behind a sea wall or a tall building.

[Beet]

Hmm. What is actually going on? There are 5 reactors in trouble, and the issue is to get power to the cooling systems. So they either have it or they don't. And if they don't, how far are they away from getting power, and how far are they away from meltdown? The problem is there doesn't seem to be a lot of details going on.

[Beet]

Also there are reports of panic buying at supermarkets and there have been rumors of power cuts after 6pm (though those seem to have been debunked)

Actually the tweet says the supermarkets are full but no panic buying.

[Beet]

Well hopefully what happened in Japan will be studied extensively and existing plants in earthquake prone areas will be upgraded in power systems to prevent this particular type of problem from re-occurring.

[Beet]

Holy shi t, the reactor is blowing...

[Beet]

Holy shi t, the reactor is blowing...

CNN: "Explosion near nuclear plant"

There was shaking, then several explosions, the entire top and wall of the reactor building has collapsed. Several workers are injured. Authorities are now telling people to go inside and shut all windows.

[Beet]

Holy shi t, the reactor is blowing...

CNN: "Explosion near nuclear plant"

There was shaking, then several explosions, the entire top and wall of the reactor building has collapsed. Several workers are injured. Authorities are now telling people to go inside and shut all windows.

What an awful job that must be.

Radiation levels almost 10,000 times normal have now been detected at the plant.

[Beet]

The Daini No. 1 plant is now leaking, 1.7m of rods are exposed, cooling water is declining.

[Beet]

Reactor 3 coolant has stopped working.

[Beet]

Reactor 3 coolant has stopped working.

We might be talking meltdown.

We're now over 36 hours from the tsunami, so if the coolant just stopped working now, presumably it was working for most of the previous 36? Is there some point where the thing is cooled and we don't have to worry about the cooling system?

Also, if I were the Japanese I'd just start dumping seawater and boron into all of the cores now, there's no point in risking more failures.

[Beet]

My guess is it was backup system that has failed.

But the backup system has been running for most of the past 36 hours right? I mean, is there a point where the core is cooled and we don't have to worry about any coolant systems?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yeah but obviously shutting them down doesn't resolve the problem. I'd prepare to immediately dump seawater and boron into all the other cores right now in case their backup systems fail.

[Beet]

Also, if I were the Japanese I'd just start dumping seawater and boron into all of the cores now, there's no point in risking more failures.

sea water is the last resort because any reactor having sea water dumped into it will never be started up again.

A small price to pay for the reactors that are in emergency mode right now, wouldn't you think? It sounds like these old battle wagons were about to be decommissioned anyway.

If a meltdown occurs, the US would have 10 days to evacuate the following states: AK, WA, OR, CA, ID, NV, AZ, UT, MT, WY, CO, NM. Here is the nuclear fallout map. Keep in mind that 450 rads is lethal for humans.



Right now the only thing preventing this is the dumping of seawater into the core of Unit No. 1, which is characterised thusly:

"Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and former senior policy adviser to the U.S. secretary of energy, said in a briefing for reporters that the seawater was a desperate measure.

"It's a Hail Mary pass," he said.

He said that the success of using seawater and boron to cool the reactor will depend on the volume and rate of their distribution. He said the dousing would need to continue nonstop for days."

And that's only for Unit No. 1, not to speak of Unit No. 3

[Beet]

No, this is not like Chernobyl because the radiation was released by aerial exposure. So it could be contained by building a structure over it. Here, the if the core melts into the ground, it will seep out from the ground environment, it cannot be contained. The steel structure would collapse over the melted core and create an explosion far bigger than yesterday's hydrogen explosion. Furthermore, the power generation at the overall facility is far higher than Chernobyl.

Japan is now reporting that the pressure release for Unit No. 3 is NOT working.

Another earthquake is hitting Tokyo and Fukushima.

[Beet]

From the WSJ:

"Separately, company documents show that Tokyo Electric tested the Fukushima plant to withstand a maximum seismic jolt lower than Friday's 8.9 earthquake. Tepco's last safety test of nuclear power plant Number 1—one that is currently in danger of meltdown—was done at a seismic magnitude the company considered the highest possible, but in fact turned out to be lower than Friday's quake.
...
Simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the sea east of the plants—the epicenter of Friday's quake—wouldn't surpass 7.9, according to the company's presentation.

The company based its models partly on previous seismic activity in the area, including a 7.0 earthquake in May 1938 and two simultaneous earthquakes of 7.3 and 7.5 on November 5 of the same year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703555404576195700301455480.html

The quake has now been upgraded to 9.0.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110312p2a00m0na010000c.html

The massive earthquake that struck the Tohoku region on March 11 was caused by several quake focal areas moving simultaneously, producing an intensity that would occur only once in 1,000 years, say experts.

The seismic energy of the March 11 earthquake, which the Meteorological Agency said had a magnitude of 8.8, was 180 times that of the magnitude-7.3 Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995 that devastated Kobe and surrounding areas and killed over 6,000 people.

"A fault section at least 500 kilometers long and 100 kilometers wide moved by up to eight meters. Some areas off Fukushima Prefecture are extremely strained, and it's presumed that multiple areas moved simultaneously," he said.

"Experts had predicted that there was a 99 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 to 8 earthquake would occur in the area within 30 years. However, the latest quake had a magnitude of 8.8, and its seismic energy was 90 times the predicted volume."

[Beet]

Suspected leak at another plant - Onagawa plant. Not Fukushima.

Israeli experts said today the situation is more dangerous than Chernobyl:

Hebrew University Professor Menachem Luria, an expert on air quality and poisoning, told Channel 2 on Saturday: "This is very worrying. There is no doubt that we have not seen anything like this in years, perhaps ever since nuclear experiments were conducted in the atmosphere in the 1950s. From what we can gather, this disaster is even more dangerous than Chernobyl, both from the standpoint of the population's exposure to radioactive material and the spread of radioactive contamination in the area."

Luria continued: "Once there is an uncontrollable heating up, the nuclear fuel undergoes a metamorphosis into the gaseous phase. Since we are talking about metals and solid items, they turn into particles that are capable of traveling great distances. They can wander thousands of kilometers."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/japan-nuclear-blast-could-be-more-deadly-than-chernobyl-experts-fear-1.348809

[Beet]

Well, to be honest, there are probably locations in the world where nuclear power shouldn't be considered as much (earthquake-prone areas, coastal areas, etc.), but if you want to stick it in the middle of the U.S. or the middle of Europe, it's probably pretty safe there.

Actually, the middle of the US is one of the most earthquake prone areas out there:



And as I pointed out in the other thread, earthquakes aren't the only potential danger. Asteroids, tornadoes, hurricanes, internal sabotage/terrorism, and missile strikes are all potential dangers.

[Beet]

A strong enough tornado or hurricane could easily take out power to the plant, they take out power to residential complexes as a matter of course. That would leave the backup generators. A strong enough tornado or hurricane could easily take out backup generators.

[Beet]

I don't.

[Beet]

I don't.

Not to mention the backup generators were taken out by the flood, not the earthquake or epic winds. I highly doubt a tornado would cause damage (at least where it matters) to a Nuclear reactor. There is a slight chance a Hurricane could send in a surge that could affect a nuclear plant by the ocean, but even then the strongest hurricanes don't send a surge anything remotely close to the Tsunami that ripped through Japan. And remember this is a part of the world that gets some of the most intense storms out there. I am pretty sure the plants were built to withstand them. Hell, I am sure a few have blown over them, though I can't say with certainty.

Of course the fact that I don't know that any hypothetical tornado or hurricane would necessarily destroy any power system it came across has no bearing on my point that it is a risk that must be accounted for. Why you asked that question is baffling. It would be the height of absurdity if I said I did know what would happen in a broad hypothetical scenario with no parameters specified.

Are you an expert on power generation, hurricanes, and nuclear plants? No? Then what is "I am pretty sure..." and "I highly doubt" worth? No one can responsibly put public safety at the hands of such amateur assertions and guesses.

Hurricanes and tornadoes pick up objects and fling them at extremely high speeds. It is not impossible to think they could damage a backup power generator enough to disable it. This is exactly what happened to an emergency communications system during Hurricane Katrina:

"Throughout the duration of Hurricane Katrina, the EDACS system remained operational. It wasnt until several hours after the storm had passed that the system experienced reduced operation. The system did not experience diminished capabilities due to an equipment failure, but rather the systems generator (on the roof of the forty-two story Energy Centre) was struck by a piece of debris, which damaged the generators radiator. "

http://govpro.com/technology/telecommunications/gov_imp_31441/

[Beet]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

When's the last time Japan had a 9.0 magnitude quake? The Great Kanto quake, e.g. Tokyo earthquake of 1923, was only 7.9 in magnitude, e.g. this quake was 10 times worse than that in amplitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a nuclear meltdown could spread damage over a far greater area and longer time than an explosives plant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reactors are Fukushima were not knocked down and I'm not talking about reactors. I'm talking about the backup power generators. I've already posted an example where a hurricane took out a power generator above.

[Beet]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

When's the last time Japan had a 9.0 magnitude quake? The Great Kanto quake, e.g. Tokyo earthquake of 1923, was only 7.9 in magnitude, e.g. this quake was 10 times worse than that in amplitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a nuclear meltdown could spread damage over a far greater area and longer time than an explosives plant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reactors are Fukushima were not knocked down and I'm not talking about reactors. I'm talking about the backup power generators. I've already posted an example where a hurricane took out a power generator above.

But the mid-U.S. hasn't had close to even a 7.9 in a long time.  The earthquakes there are generally weaker.

That doesn't mean anything. In fact, quite the opposite... the longer a plate has gone without a large earthquake, the more likely a large earthquake will occur, because it means that pressure has had more time to build up.

According to modern estimates, the New Madrid fault had a 7.7 earthquake in 1811, 7.7 and a 7.5 in 1812.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which excludes alternate sources of power, like non-nuclear, coal-fired plants, or solar plants, or wind farms. Yeah, the windmills can fall down, but that spreading damage over such a wide area as a nuclear catastrophe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's like saying, 50,000 people died, so another 10,000 people dying "won't matter as much." It'll matter when it happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take the plant offline? That's not an option for a nuclear reactor, which is the entire point. Just because something worked in 2 instances doesn't mean it's safe. Obviously I'm talking about highly abnormal and stronger-than-normal phenomenal, not your typical "severe weather" or tornado or hurricane.

----

Also, I'd like to add, since we are far from finding out what exactly the problems are in Fukushima & what precisely was the cause, anyone declaring "everything is safe/could never happen here" is premature.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

Beet, if the situation that is so catastrophic that they can't shut it down, it won't make that much of a difference.

What won't make that much of a difference? It always makes a difference if they can't shut down a reactor & the fallout that would ensue.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

No, but 24 hour warning time for hurricanes (if not 48 hours) is pretty reliable.

And 24 hours is not sufficient, as I said. It takes 72 hours to fully shut down a reactor. Besides, hurricane is only one of many potential risks.