patrick.net

That's not the same thing nomo. You can't equate nuclear reactor blowing up to a nuclear bomb.

Golly, I guess that US atomic weaponry from the 1940's must be equivalent to Japanese nuclear reactor technology used today. Gee whiz, how could I have missed such an obvious conclusion?

Moving on, the issue is whether the released radioactive material will get pushed high enough into the atmosphere and/or get dumped into the ocean and make its way here to the Pacific coast. Further, the amount and type of material are a important considerations.

ChrisLA says

That’s not the same thing nomo. You can’t equate nuclear reactor blowing up to a nuclear bomb.

Actually, I believe that you can. And the radiation from the nuclear tests in the 50's & 60's can directly be linked to cancers that are devastating people to this day. There are many "downwinders" sites that discuss the compensation for the victims - it's an ongoing concern.

However, the atmosphere would probably help to dissapate the radiation to harmless levels. It is concerning that they're talking about more than one reactor melting down, tho. If that happens, the Japanese people are totally screwed.

Hmm... not so sure about that elliemae. The nuclear tests you mentioned injected particulates high up into the atmosphere. These particulates would have been carried by the prevailing winds for substantial distances before dropping onto the 'downwinders'. Meltdowns *tend* to be localized (think Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island), but could have long range effects if local gas discharges and radioactive cooling waters are dumped into the ocean and carried away by far-reaching currents. It seems unlikely that atmospheric deposition would be an issue for a reactor meltdown, but who knows for sure?

Here's a good article on types of materials:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/science/13radiation.html?hp

ChrisLA says

That’s not the same thing nomo. You can’t equate nuclear reactor blowing up to a nuclear bomb.

Exactly. A bomb throws radioactive material into the stratosphere where it can travel 1000's of miles, or even circle the planet. A melt-down (it it happens)..... not so much.

Even if these reactors melt down we have nothing to fear in the US.

elliemae says

However, the atmosphere would probably help to dissapate the radiation to harmless levels. It is concerning that they’re talking about more than one reactor melting down, tho. If that happens, the Japanese people are totally screwed.

thankfully these reactors are contained, unlike Chernobyl. Whatever leaks happen will be a tiny percentage of that disaster.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but what if there's a huge explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen? Wouldn't that cause a radioactive cloud?

Nomograph says

Remember, you tend to live in a series of imaginary worst-case scenarios: Everyone lives in garages, all U.S. manufacturing has disappeared, all U.S. tech jobs have disappeared, nuclear fallout is imminent, all jobs have disappeared and will never come back, etc. You spent hours on this board trying to convince Kevin that he was about to lose his job, even though you have absolutely no idea who he is, or what he does, or where he lives, or who he works for. Think about it.

I just saw an interview on MSNBC (I gotta shut this damn thing off, but it's background noise) where a man said that it's business as usual in many parts of Japan. Reminds me of the events surrounding the Indian Ocean Tsunami - there were reports that a few miles away from the shore there was no evidence of the disaster having occurred.

The interwebs do lend credibility to doomsday scenarios just because anyone at all can post their opinion - and once it's in writing, it can be considered fact (to those people desperate to find something written that supports their position).

elliemae says

but what if there’s a huge explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen? Wouldn’t that cause a radioactive cloud?

no need for a 'what if' with that . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE

again, this probably isn't in the same ballpark as a single nuclear test. I don't know how dirty a fusion bomb is compared to exploding hydrogen that has been vented from a core, but my suspicion is the latter is negligible in comparison.

Not that I would want to be immediately downwind of that of course. . .

elliemae says

I’m not trying to be contrary, but what if there’s a huge explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen? Wouldn’t that cause a radioactive cloud?

I forgot the obvious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSuR2IgnimA

I guess that hydrogen just blows up & is gone in one spectacular moment. This japan thing is horrible - nuclear power is great when it works, but when there's a problem it affects so many people in potentially devastating ways.

Nomograph says

terriDeaner says

Gee whiz, how could I have missed such an obvious conclusion?

Containment technology is much better today. The entire purpose of a nuclear bomb was to cause complete devastation, and no fallout made it to the U.S.
Sorry to rain on your little paranoia party, but there’s plenty of places on the Internet that will welcome it with open arms.

Ok, I'll bite at this bait. Kudos on such awesome insight! You must have based your reply on some good reference material or personal experience. Really, your dismissive responses don't look at all like a bunch of anecdotal speculation.

For those who actually are interested discussing some facts and possible (if even improbable) scenarios:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110312/ts_alt_afp/japanquakenuclearuscaliforniahealth

I'm not overly worried by this, but it is worth keeping an eye on. And maybe worth stocking up on iodized salt.

And here is a good article from the BBC that gives a scale of nuclear accidents, with past examples:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12726628

Looks like Chernobyl was worse than I remembered... the article says that radioactive material was detected 1000 km away in Sweden after the meltdown. Bear in mind that the winds would have carried this stuff mostly over land.

We are ~8800 km from Japan and separated by an ocean. Apples and oranges?

It makes more sense to me to worry about how this affects Japan and it's immediate neighbors than how it might reach here. Not that my sense of other immediate problems and my general shock resistance don't render me pretty much lacking sympathy or empathy (relatively speaking) as much as the next American.

What is the death toll now ?

China puts a rather profound amount of air pollution in to the atmosphere. Probably as big or bigger a concern would be how much of that ends up here.

marcus says

It makes more sense to me to worry about how this affects Japan and it’s immediate neighbors than how it might reach here. Not that my sense of other immediate problems and my general shock resistance don’t render me pretty much lacking sympathy or empathy (relatively speaking) as much as the next American.
What is the death toll now ?

Over 10K... scary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14japan.html?hp

China puts a rather profound amount of air pollution in to the atmosphere. Probably as big or bigger a concern would be how much of that ends up here.

via zerohedge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html

MarkInSF says

thankfully these reactors are contained, unlike Chernobyl. Whatever leaks happen will be a tiny percentage of that disaster.

I don't think the Legacy of Chernobyl is over. There still hasn't been a more permanent structure to contain the old reactor containment building. There will be a day in the future when the entire building just collapses and releases whatever is left in the building into the environment.

Nomograph says

Sorry to ruin your paranoia party, but Nomograph bases his statements on facts whereas you base your on hyperbole. The evacuation zone for this type of event is 10 miles, not 10,000 miles:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/13/california-doesnt-face-fall-out-crippled-japanese-/?sciquest

Thanks for making this so easy for me Elmo...er Nomograph!

Carrier Reagan passes through radioactive 'cloud'
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/13/carrier-reagan-pilots-deliver-aid-japan/?sciquest

"The New York Times says, "The Pentagon was expected to announce that the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, which is sailing in the Pacific, passed through a radioactive cloud from stricken nuclear reactors in Japan, causing crew members on deck to receive a month’s worth of radiation in about an hour, government officials said Sunday."

"The ship was operating at sea about 100 miles northeast of the power plant at the time. "[emphasis added]

Bear in mind that the meltdowns and leaky reactor problems are by no means over...

Second Explosion at Reactor as Technicians Try to Contain Damage
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?_r=1&hp

Risk of Meltdown Spreads at Japanese Plant (to reactor#3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?hp

Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?hp

...and that problems from exposure to radiation do not always manifest immediately, so washing with soap and water is just a first response treatment. Is is really paranoid to CONSIDER that, given the escalating problems at the Japanese nuclear facilities, things may get bad enough that we could be adversely affected, even across an ocean?

Nomograph says

terriDeaner says

scary.

I’m guessing you’re scared of your own shadow.

Actually, what I found scary was the horrifying destruction wrought by the megaquake and tsunami, along with the tragic loss of life. But don't worry, your eagerness to belittle me doesn't reflect poorly on your character or make you look like a callous jerk who just needs to be right.

Based on your replies I really hope you continue stay positive and ignore all of the news and information that you don't want to hear. Or perhaps, if you like, just keep misinterpreting the inconvenient parts that make you sad. I think it works like this for you...

actual quote from Nomograph source material:

Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity.[emphasis added]

which means:
Any levels of radioactivity experienced by the Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to be high enough to be harmful.

Nomograph read as:
Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not going to experience any thing but sunshine an lollipops so ignore any news on levels of radioactivity.[emphasis added]

I've only seen a couple of good news articles on TV and they didn't really repeat. Probably because they weren't doomsday scenarios, but dealt with how these reactors are built and what would happen.

The cores have been shut down. The uranium is no longer producing heat. What is left is material that uranium breaks down into, that is producing heat still. The half life of that material isn't measured in years, it's measured in minutes and seconds mostly.

A metldown won't be Chernobyl style either, what a meltdown in these new reactors means is that the reactors won't be usable afterwords and will basically be entombed in their reactors. They're designed differently now, and don't do the same things as the old reactors would.

There are a few good articles out there from nuclear engineers who can explain exactly what's happening inside. They aren't that hard to find either.

These are not Russian 80's designs, and it's been 4 days now. They have pretty good odds on getting it all under control IMO although it's going to be a hell of a mess to clean up afterwards. All the damage plus emergency measures taken afterwards mean even understanding how to untangle it will take a while. Doubtless this site will be shut permanently, and it's remants hauled off to other locations. I wonder that they didn't have some sort of automated SAFE SHUTDOWN though. First sign of real troubles you'd think the systems would start retracting rods etc. automatically. Guess that's got it's own problems though in a really strong earthquake.

pkennedy says

A metldown won’t be Chernobyl style either, what a meltdown in these new reactors means is that the reactors won’t be usable afterwords and will basically be entombed in their reactors. They’re designed differently now, and don’t do the same things as the old reactors would.

There are a few good articles out there from nuclear engineers who can explain exactly what’s happening inside. They aren’t that hard to find either.

I sincerely hope this doesn't proceed to Chernobyl stage. My concern is that since most of the well-engineered safety mechanisms have thus far failed to some degree, no one can be certain of what happens next. Could you post links to the articles you've found by the nuke engineers?

Vicente says

These are not Russian 80’s designs, and it’s been 4 days now. They have pretty good odds on getting it all under control IMO although it’s going to be a hell of a mess to clean up afterwards. All the damage plus emergency measures taken afterwards mean even understanding how to untangle it will take a while. Doubtless this site will be shut permanently, and it’s remants hauled off to other locations. I wonder that they didn’t have some sort of automated SAFE SHUTDOWN though. First sign of real troubles you’d think the systems would start retracting rods etc. automatically. Guess that’s got it’s own problems though in a really strong earthquake.

My understanding is that the safe shutdown protocol was part of the problem. That is, when the earthquake hit, there was an automatic systematic shutdown for several hours then they tried to start normal reactor operations after the preset safety shutdown period expired. Unfortunately, the power to the cooling systems did not come back on line after the shutdown period, and the secondary measures they have been using to prevent a full meltdown have apparently not been too effective...

pkennedy says

The cores have been shut down. The uranium is no longer producing heat. What is left is material that uranium breaks down into, that is producing heat still. The half life of that material isn’t measured in years, it’s measured in minutes and seconds mostly.

Under ideal circumstances, yes. But the big concern is the possibility of other, nastier radioactive materials (with biological activity and longer half-lives) escaping in large quantities in particulate form. Very difficult to clean up and very dangerous. Some of these materials can be serious trouble even in smaller doses, if they persist in the environment and have the propensity to bioaccumulate.

Hmmm, I just got around to looking for details of the failure. There's a decent summary video on CNN about 3 minutes long that outlines the chain of cooling failures.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/14/dnt.japan.reactor.explainer.nhk?hpt=C2

Primary cooling system shutdown due to power failure.
Shutdown of secondary diesel-powered emergency cooling system one hour after the quake, right when the tsunami struck.
The tertiary emergency system was then unable to handle the job, perhaps due to leakage from the vessel.

terriDeaner says

…and that problems from exposure to radiation do not always manifest immediately, so washing with soap and water is just a first response treatment. Is is really paranoid to CONSIDER that, given the escalating problems at the Japanese nuclear facilities, things may get bad enough that we could be adversely affected, even across an ocean?

You need to gain a much better understanding of radiation, radioactive materials, exposure levels, and effects. There are many sources of information that can explain this material if you are actually interested in facts not hysteria.

bob2356 says

terriDeaner says

…and that problems from exposure to radiation do not always manifest immediately, so washing with soap and water is just a first response treatment. Is is really paranoid to CONSIDER that, given the escalating problems at the Japanese nuclear facilities, things may get bad enough that we could be adversely affected, even across an ocean?

You need to gain a much better understanding of radiation, radioactive materials, exposure levels, and effects. There are many sources of information that can explain this material if you are actually interested in facts not hysteria.

PLEASE educate me bobby. Pretty please.

Vicente says

Hmmm, I just got around to looking for details of the failure. There’s a decent summary video on CNN about 3 minutes long that outlines the chain of cooling failures.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/14/dnt.japan.reactor.explainer.nhk?hpt=C2
Primary cooling system shutdown due to power failure.

Shutdown of secondary diesel-powered emergency cooling system one hour after the quake, right when the tsunami struck.

The tertiary emergency system was then unable to handle the job, perhaps due to leakage from the vessel.

Ok, so it looks like there was a series of emergency system failures. I can see how it is difficult to plan for a series of low probability disasters... but I have to say that it is surprising that there was not a more robust safety system in place. Sort of like the scenario you suggested in your earlier comment.

There probably won't be serious fallout in Japan, let alone the United States. They're only halfway down their list of contingencies, and the simplest solutions are at the end of the list. Those cost about a billion dollars to clean up after if they're needed, but they contain the damage without serious public health impact. The containment structures on these plants are designed to contain any failure up to and including a complete core meltdown.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0313/Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-and-Chernobyl-key-differences

Thanks msilenus, that was exactly the type of info I was looking for.

I came across this as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/12/world/asia/the-explosion-at-the-japanese-reactor.html?ref=asia

Step 6 details the full meltdown scenario, and suggests that a complete breach of all structures is very unlikely and *probably* not possible.

I'm pretty sure the reactors are shut down, and the rods have been removed. What's left is residue half life material breaking down, creating heat on it's own. The cooling process was there to keep that process from getting too hot. The reactor itself should be off.

Much like when you turn off a car, many modern cars keep a fan blowing to cool it off. The reactors are off, but they're still hot and they need cooling.

pkennedy says

I’m pretty sure the reactors are shut down, and the rods have been removed. What’s left is residue half life material breaking down, creating heat on it’s own. The cooling process was there to keep that process from getting too hot. The reactor itself should be off.
Much like when you turn off a car, many modern cars keep a fan blowing to cool it off. The reactors are off, but they’re still hot and they need cooling.

I think you're right that the reactors are shut down, but according to that interactive demo I posted above, however, the fuel rods are still in the reactor. The control rods have been deployed, which should slow down (and eventually stop?) the residual reactor activity, but since the fuel rods are still producing heat, without adequate cooling they may eventually melt completely.

Again, it seems that these modern reactors are engineered to contain a full meltdown, but to my knowledge this is the first time they've been put to the ultimate test. I hope they hold.

terriDeaner says

Ok, so it looks like there was a series of emergency system failures. I can see how it is difficult to plan for a series of low probability disasters… but I have to say that it is surprising that there was not a more robust safety system in place. Sort of like the scenario you suggested in your earlier comment.

Well yes and no. I think we are getting the broad strokes here and not the whole picture.

That said, I read a fascinating set of articles recently about the history of Murphy's Law. Which in it's original forms was not intended to be fatalistic. "If it can happen, it will happen" is a useful reminder about paranoia in design, quite different from the more popular versions which vary slightly but all essentially say fatalistically 'Everything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong.'"

If anyone is interested, it's a series of 4 articles linked from here:

http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i5/murphy/murphy0.html

pkennedy says

A metldown won’t be Chernobyl style either, what a meltdown in these new reactors means is that the reactors won’t be usable afterwords and will basically be entombed in their reactors. They’re designed differently now, and don’t do the same things as the old reactors would.

These *are* old reactors.

msilenus says

There probably won’t be serious fallout in Japan, let alone the United States. They’re only halfway down their list of contingencies

They've run out of options and are just pumping seawater in now and venting it into the containment building (unit 2) or open air (units 1 & 3) when the pressure gets to great. They're now debating cutting a vent into building 2 so it doesn't blow up like its neighbors.

pkennedy says

Much like when you turn off a car, many modern cars keep a fan blowing to cool it off. The reactors are off, but they’re still hot and they need cooling.

Car engines can't turn themselves back on. Reactor cores can when they melt and pool at the bottom of the containment vessel. This is the "China Syndrome" and the Mark I (old school) containment vessels were not designed to handle this.

The plant people lost cooling to Unit 2 again and there is some (dubious) reports of inability to vent the containment vessel. I don't know what its bursting point is, but a burst containment vessel would be rather catastrophic, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

I don't think this is any worse than any one of the hundreds of nuclear bomb tests the US was doing in the 1950s, but if the wind is blowing towards Tokyo that would do a number on a lot of things, since this is a close analogue of what happened at Chernobyl -- a reactor sending a cloud of nasty radioactive particles downwind.

Complicating matters is that reactor 3 was running with a 5% mix of plutonium. This has a lower melting temperature and is more likely to restart fission after melting, plus its toxicity profile is about twice as bad as the other 2 plants.

I'm 95% sure the situation won't get any worse than it is now, but this event is not over yet.

Vicente says

“If it can happen, it will happen” is a useful reminder about paranoia in design, quite different from the more popular versions which vary slightly but all essentially say fatalistically ‘Everything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong.’”

This plant is a GE design and it may have been just plopped onto its site without fully realizing the risks this site involved.

For one, I've read that the backup generators were taken out by the tsunami, and replacement generators couldn't be hooked up because the electrical switching room was *in the basement*.

D'oh! Pretty stupid contingency analysis, given that this site has 150 miles of open sea to a very active subduction fault with 10,000 miles of moving plate behind it.

That said, I read a fascinating set of articles recently about the history of Murphy’s Law. Which in it’s original forms was not intended to be fatalistic. “If it can happen, it will happen” is a useful reminder about paranoia in design, quite different from the more popular versions which vary slightly but all essentially say fatalistically ‘Everything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong.’”

Agreed. It seems to me that the point of good system design (whether mechanical or other) is to build a robustness into the system that can stand up to low probablility/high impact events (i.e., a 'black swans'), and not just to anticipate and prepare for most likely events. Same goes for the futility of trying to plan for all possible events, for that matter.

Troy says

I’m 95% sure the situation won’t get any worse than it is now, but this event is not over yet.

And it is that tail, fat or thin, that concerns me.

Troy says

For one, I’ve read that the backup generators were taken out by the tsunami, and replacement generators couldn’t be hooked up because the electrical switching room was *in the basement*.

Thank you--I've been wondering this whole time why we just didn't fly in some new diesel generators... That would make sense.

Not good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

oh fuck.

NHK says number #2 reactor leaking contaminated water -- "could be worst case scenario for BWR in Japan" -- container vessel damage possible. "Some operators evacuated to other locations"

"Explosion in pressure suppression room" at 6:14AM

Oh, and the wind is blowing towards Tokyo now. 4.4 m/s velocity.

Fuck.

It's not really "worst case" yet.

Right now there's Chernobyl-level contamination, but only locally, unless the explosion was bigger than just a "large sound".

Worst case is the spent fuel pools in the reactors somehow losing their water levels, allowing *them* to overheat, catch fire, and spew contaminants into the air for months.

In the press conference the press person is being a jerk.

"What is the nature of the accident at this time? We are not asking your feeling . . . We want the facts. . ."

"The blast was heard near the pressure vessel . . . suppression pool pressure falling, indicating damage to the suppression pool . . . causing evacuation of the operators"

"however, other parameters have not changed greatly, water level is 2.7m under the control rods."

"Partial staff evacuation started?"

Questions about how many, when and where did the staff go?

A: "We'll get back to you on that"