Fukushima Is a Disaster - No Question about It.

[MineralMan]

Now, there are plans to remove stored spent fuel, some of it containing Plutonium, from the storage areas at the reactors. For many reasons, this is a very difficult thing to do, and dangerous, to be sure. It is also a very necessary thing to do, since a major earthquake could destroy the storage area and cause much additional radiation to be dispersed.

Some sources, however, are calling this planned removal "The world's most dangerous moment." Another source says that the entire northern hemisphere may have to be evacuated. These alarmist sources fail to consider the alternative to this removal process.

Is an attempt to remove this fuel in a planned way, after many months of planning, more dangerous than simply leaving it in place and waiting for another major earthquake? I don't think so.

Fukushima represents the worst possible scenario that can result from nuclear power generation. The earthquake and tsunami have already occurred, causing the release of large amounts of radioactivity. That has already happened. It cannot be undone. What happens next has been the subject of a great deal of study and planning, involving experts from all around the world. It's an engineering problem. How to get the existing nuclear power rods that are in storage in the damaged reactor buildings away from there in a safe way is a daunting engineering problem.

That removal is essential, because leaving the material where it currently is located is certain to create very serious issues the next time a major earthquake hits. Taking the risk of removing the materials is far preferable to the certainty of what will happen if that is not done.

A great deal of planning has been done in preparation for this removal. That's because it is such an important thing to do. And there are risks involved in the removal, to be sure. However, those risks are far outweighed by the much larger risks created by doing nothing.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It can never be made to be safe. Fukushima is evidence of that statement. Now that disaster has occurred, mitigating that disaster as best as we can manage is the primary goal.

For those decrying the effort to remove the fuel rods from their precarious storage, I ask: What is the alternative? What is your plan for it? How would you deal with the problem? If you have expertise in such operations, I'd ask: Why aren't you there working on the solution? If you have no such expertise, I'd ask: Why would you imagine that people with such expertise are not the ones planning this removal?

[maindawg]

1. no one cares

because no one is talking about it. The corporate media is covering it up. They have like 400 tons of deadly radioactive waste that they have to remove manually over the next year or two. How likely is it that they will make a mistake? Id say 100%.
And they think they will be having the Olympics right down the road in a few years from now.
There wont be a Japan in a few years from now.

[MineralMan]

2. And if they don't remove the material?

How likely is it that an even greater problem will occur? I'd say 100%.

[malaise]

50. It's a major disaster either way

and we were warned since that quake and tsunami. The world's silence is even more scary.

[MineralMan]

51. It has been a major disaster since the earthquake and tsunami.

The goal now is to keep it from becoming an even bigger disaster. The world is silent because there's not much left to say, really. It happened. It's a disaster. The reality, though, is that the world's not really silent at all. Fukushima remains an important topic, with a lot of interest around the world. Right now, people are talking about this fuel removal process, because that is what is happening now.

Much of the world is reliant on nuclear energy for power generation. That is a fact. There's a nuclear plant just an hour or so drive from where I live in Minnesota. There was one nearer than that where I lived in California. In much of the country, an awful lot of people find themselves in the same situation.

None of those plants should have been built, but all of them were built. Dealing with that is the topic at hand.

[malaise]

52. Hopefully they'll stop building them

The Germans are doing amazing stuff with solar energy. That's the safe route and so is wind.

[MineralMan]

53. That would be excellent!

[closeupready]

59. +1 to this, but I'd say also, people are stupid generally.

The poor state of education being a big part of that.

Anecdotally, I remember something from high school. It was so weird, even at that time, because it was so out of character for the liberal teacher who did it, but we had some kind of social studies class, and we were studying energy sources. Obviously, we got to nuclear, and this normally liberal teacher (one of two, kind of a Woodward/Bernstein duo) became HIGHLY dogmatic on the topic of nuclear energy, demanding acquiescence to the dogma that nuclear is safe, totally safe, period, end of discussion. And I remember his teaching counterpart remained silent, but gave him this weird "what the fuck?" look. And the class also was real silent, you could have heard a pin drop. The class resumed, but I've never forgotten that.

It's hard for me to look back at that day and forgive him for closing both his mind and his student's minds to the discussion of nuclear and it's merits and demerits.

[99Forever]

3. Excuse me?

So your premise is that the only people who can express serious concern about a bunch of fucking proven bumbling idiots handling hundreds of tons of materials that are capable wiping life off a large portion of the planet, are those who, without any expertise in, or without all of the pertinent facts and options, can "come up with a better plan?"

Wow, MM, you've outdone yourself.

[MineralMan]

4. No, that isn't my premise.

Sorry.

[99Forever]

5. Sure sounds like it is.

Another of your "just shut up and take it" rants from what I can see.

[MineralMan]

7. Nope. Read it again.

The premise is that it is better to remove those fuel rods than to leave them in place, and that expertise will be needed to do so. That is the premise.

[Bonobo]

6. K&R nt

[MineralMan]

8. Thanks. I appreciate that.

I hope the operation is completely successful and goes smoothly. I'm assuming that the planning has been extensive and careful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I think the genuine concern is that Tepco is in charge of the operation

and not many people think they are the best people for the job, any more. The question is whether an international team could do it more safely, and whether a wait to arrange that would be worth it.

[MineralMan]

11. Perhaps so. However, I've not heard of any proposals that do not involve Tepco.

I'm sure that advice has been sought from many sources for this operation. Expertise in handling nuclear materials is certainly needed, and I don't believe that Tepco has the equipment needed, nor the expertise in using that equipment. It stands to reason that others have been consulting on the planned removal, since other expertise in materials handling will be needed. The complexity of the situation is almost mind-boggling, which is why it has taken so long to create a plan for removal of these materials.

One way or another, removing the fuel rod assemblies is essential, if an even worse disaster is to be prevented. That must be clear to everyone who has bothered to think about the situation at any serious level. I don't think this is some amateurish, unplanned effort. I'm quite sure it has been carefully planned and hope that it is done safely. I can't imagine that anyone doesn't hope it is done safely, including Tepco.

[99Forever]

12. ^^This^^

Exactly.

Having TEPCO in charge of this, is much like having George W Bush in charge of fixing the economy.

[MineralMan]

14. And who would you recommend to be in charge?

What organization or company could handle the job? I don't know of any. I seriously doubt that Tepco is doing this on its own, in the first place. For any such unprecedented operation, consulting will have been done with a wide range of people with specific expertise. It's a complex problem and it will have a complex solution, involving expertise in many areas.

[99Forever]

15. That's a whole bunch of assuming there.

Bottom line is, as long as TEPCO is in control, the very same people who have sworn for decades that this sort of disaster not only couldn't but wouldn't EVER happen, there can be no trusting them to do this right. Even since this clusterfuck started, they gave LIED over and over again about what's really happening.

It is indeed a complex problem. Far too complex for the lying clowns at TEPCO to even have a voice in it's solution. They have already proven they are not worthy of any trust, all they are interested in is covering their own asses.

[MineralMan]

16. Again, who would you suggest to be in charge of this process?

Give me a name of any organization or company who you trust to be capable of safely removing these nuclear fuel assemblies in Japan. I'll wait here.

[99Forever]

19. Where have I claimed...

.. to be some sort of expert on nuclear disposal? I understand what you really want is to have people like me just to shut up, but it ain't happening.

Who, you ask?

Someone besides the fucking idiots who drove the world into the nuclear ditch in the first place. That's "who."

[MineralMan]

24. No, I don't want anyone to shut up.

I've made it clear that I oppose nuclear power generation, and have made that clear for a very long time. Now that the worst has occurred, the only people capable of dealing with the removal of the fuel rod assemblies are those who created the plants in the first place. That is my point. Nobody else has the expertise needed to do so.

And there it is. I'm not an expert in it either. The experts in that area are the ones who are on the job, along with a lot of other experts. Let's hope they do it successfully. The alternative is not to do it at all, and that's not a real alternative at all.

If someone can come up with someone else who would be more qualified to do this, no names have been mentioned by anyone. I keep asking, and the answer is not forthcoming.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

It exists, however, and now that Fukushima has occurred, it has to be dealt with.

[GeorgeGist]

54. IAEA oversight might make some more assured.

[MineralMan]

55. That organization is already involved with the Fukushima disaster.

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 11:46 AM - Edit history (2)

On edit:

Apparently, it is one of their areas of interest. For those interested, visit the link below:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/

[Bonobo]

10. No one in Japan wants anything but success and I, for one, greatly appreciate

your OP and your positive thinking.

This subject deserves more than cries of "hubris" and "bananas".

Too many people seem to forget that it is a serious matter and self-serving snark is..well hurtful and irritating and generally crappy and unhelpful.

[MineralMan]

13. It is my sincere hope that the planning involved in this

fuel rod assembly removal leads to success. Throughout this entire disaster, my thoughts have been with the people living in Japan. I'll be following the removal effort, as I have been following everything involved with the disaster.

Stay safe.

[Sunlei]

17. yes they do need to get the stored stuff off the beach. I suggest storage deep in their mountians

should have built their reactors up there too. surrounded by miles of mountain rock.

[MineralMan]

20. My own belief is that no nuclear power plants should have been built anywhere.

Sadly, though, many have been built. Fukushima illustrates the folly of that. The clean-up should never have been necessary, but it is necessary. So, let us hope that it is done as safely as possible, and as expeditiously as possible.

[Sunlei]

26. I agree. They should not have built next to the sea & where it is a fact Tsunamis will come.

There are even inland centuries old stone markers that warn "don't build past this point. Tsunami"

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. But they WERE built.

Now they have to be cleaned up after what was predicted actually happened. That is the real issue right now, not whether they should have been built. They were built. It's too late to prevent them from being built, sadly. Now we must clean up after ourselves.

[Sunlei]

28. yes it's a clean-up now. They already have dumped enough into the sea to have effect on seafood.

The next wave the entire storage and wrecked facility will be washed into the sea.

Japan has very nice mountains with not much up there except the largest race horse training facility in the world & a lot of empty mountains to store their disaster out of the range of the sea.

[randome]

21. Why not shoot for the Moon?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

18. Far too much backseat driving on this subject.

It's one thing to question the viability of nuclear power or the honesty of groups involved. It's another to weigh in on every single detail as if Internet Lernin' is a substitute for professionalism.

A good rule of thumb: when something is beyond one's field, the benefit of the doubt goes to the professionals.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

22. Yes. I've always opposed nuclear power generation.

I do not believe it can be made to be safe. However, such plants have been built all over the planet. Fukushima illustrates why that should not have happened. Now, however, there is a clean-up to be done. I have no expertise in such things, so I'm counting on those who do to do the safest possible job. Not removing those fuel rod assemblies is not an option. It simply is not.

Tepco has safely removed two of the assemblies in a test of their planned operation. Further planning has now taken place, and the process begins shortly to remove the rest of them. I'm hoping for the best possible result, but am aware that it may not go exactly as planned.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

[randome]

23. I was not against it. But I am now.

Close them all down, ship the waste to the Moon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

25. I've been opposed to it since the late 1950s.

Always. I've written about why in the past, and will not repeat that in this thread.

Nobody listened to the opponents, and nuclear power generation became a reality. Now, we have Fukushima, which needs to be cleaned up. There are no options to that. The plants were built. We have had the accidents that were predicted. Now, we have a complex, dangerous clean up to do.

That's the reality. Opposition to nuclear power generation won't change that reality. It didn't work before the plants were built, and it won't clean up Fukushima.

[madokie]

47. I'm sorry but I've been here a long time

pretty much every day since august of 2005 and I've yet to read where anyone is suggesting leaving the fuel rods where they are.
If there has been point me to them I'd like to see what I've missed.

Best I remember TEPCO won't or wouldn't let in outside help. Now that the Japanese government has some what taken control I'm not sure what is going on exactly.

This operation to remove the fuel rods is the most dangerous thing that man has had to do up to and including today. imo

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. Building a nuclear plant on a beach in a tsunami/earthquake area

The whole thing should not have been built. It shows us that nuclear power is not the answer. Windcale and Chenobyl are examples. What will be next?

[MineralMan]

30. You are absolutely right. Fukushima should never have been built.

It was built. As anyone might have predicted, it is now a disaster area. Today, we can't unbuild the place. We can only clean it up after we made the mistake of building it. That process is an enormous engineering problem. It is ongoing. Protesting the clean-up does not clean anything up. And there is no mistake: Those fuel rod assemblies must be removed. If they are not, the disaster will end up being far worse than it already is.

So, that process is about to begin. There is no alternative to removing the fuel rod assemblies. There simply isn't. It's a job that must be done. So far, Tepco has removed two of them to test their planned process. Now, it's time to remove the rest. There will be problems during that process, but nothing to compare with the collapse of the building containing the fuel in another earthquake. Not even close.

The sooner the fuel rod assemblies are moved to a safer location, the better. The next major earthquake can happen any time. There's no time to lose, but planning the removal has taken a lot of time. Now, it's time to do it. I'm not sure what there is to protest at this point. That time has passed.

[SidDithers]

31. But an accupuncturist who thinks that baking soda cures cancer...

said it's "The world's most dangerous moment"

Surely someone like that can't be wrong.

Sid

[MineralMan]

32. Yes, well...

That meme has spread across the internet. And no meme is going to clean up the mess at Fukushima.

Cranes, people, and planning are going to do that. It's a dangerous, tough job that should never have been needed. And yet, here we are, with a disaster that has already occurred. The clean-up is not optional. It must be done. There is no alternative.

[MineralMan]

33. For Those Who Wonder Why I Oppose Nuclear Power Generation:

Read this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment

I grew up in a town very close to this place. I was a freshman in high school when this reactor, the first commercial power generation reactor melted down. That is why I have always opposed nuclear power generation.

[Junkdrawer]

34. Arnie Gundersen was asked what he would do if he were in charge:

http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/nuclear-hotseat-117-gundersen-charge-fukushima-vision/

Synopsis-Gundersen expressed the need for an international group of independent experts to craft a risk-based strategic plan, and the need for a public, independent process to oversee implementation. He suggested that Americans, especially on the west coast, lobby Congress to pressure the Japanese government.
What he'd do if in charge:

1. Fire Tepco. They are not an engineering firm, don't know what they're doing. Bring in a large engineering company.

2. Instead of protecting the nuclear power industry, tell the Japanese people the truth. Fukushima will cost about a half a trillion US dollars.

3. Pump down the ground water table where clean water is continually leaking into the site and becoming contaminated. (300 tons daily is leaking into the Pacific ocean.)

4. Remove the spent fuel rods from units 3 and 4 manually.

5. Build a sarcophagus over each of the three melted down reactor carcasses. Let their radioactivity decay for a century. The radiation will then be ten times weaker.

6. The entire "tank farm" is held together with plastic pipes that won't withstand an earthquake, so pray. Over a thousand of these poorly constructed tanks hold highly radioactive water.

[MineralMan]

36. Which large engineering company?

Halliburton? KBR?

Which company is free of corruption? Which company would you trust?

[Junkdrawer]

38. Arnie says there are 4 or 5 firms capable of the job...

I'm sure if you sent him an email, he'd list them for you.

[MineralMan]

41. Ah. OK. Well, if you find his list, let me know.

We can compare those companies and their histories.

[Junkdrawer]

56. I just emailed Arnie. I'll let you know....

[Junkdrawer]

43. Arnie Gundersen interview on TheRealNews...

....

But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that Tokyo Electric has been allowed to continue to operate this plant and try to clean up the site. They're an operator, they're not an engineering firm, so that you've really got the wrong skill set. So you've got the wrong people trying to do the cleanup.

There's one other piece, though, and that piece is the cost. Tokyo Electric doesn't have enough money to do this. I made some recommendations two years ago to prevent this water from going into the Pacific, and I was told Tokyo Electric didn't have enough money to do it. Well, if they had done my recommendations years ago, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now.

The money's got to come from the nation of Japan. And the Japanese government doesn't want to admit that they're on the hook for half a trillion--that's with a T--half a trillion dollars. And they would rather not tell the Japanese people that, because the Japanese government wants to get 50 nuclear plants up and running, and if the people ever realized the liability that they face, I don't think that would happen.

...

But the points we made were, one, you've got to get rid of Tokyo Electric and you've got to replace them with an international engineer. Now, there's maybe half a dozen companies that could do this right.

...

Then the last major piece was citizen oversight. I don't believe that the Japanese government wants the people of Japan to know what the heck is going on. And so what the letter recommends is that the contractor that does the cleanup be overseen by a group of citizens--you know, people like me or people with nuclear skills, but they're not connected to the contractor.

...

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10806

[pa28]

44. I agree with Arne about the need for an international effort.

TEPCO and the Japanese government started lying on day one when they said no meltdown. They haven't stopped lying.

Now we've reached the most dangerous phase of the cleanup and the consequences are international in scope. TEPCO needs international supervision to complete the job safely and ensure they are telling the truth if something else goes wrong.

[Junkdrawer]

45. The three points he keeps emphasizing:

1.) Bring in the right skill sets

2.) Fund them adequately

3.) Oversee them with independent experts

Seems a no-brainer to me.

[BootinUp]

35. Rand Paul says danger is overstated.

[MineralMan]

37. Does he?

Show me a link where he says that about the removal of the fuel rod assemblies at Fukushima. Thanks.

[BootinUp]

39. Ok, not yet but he probably will, lol.

[MineralMan]

40. Never mind, then.

I thought you had some information. Guess not.

[BootinUp]

42. I had humor though.

[FreeJoe]

46. What is the risk?

Some sources, however, are calling this planned removal "The world's most dangerous moment." Another source says that the entire northern hemisphere may have to be evacuated. These alarmist sources fail to consider the alternative to this removal process.

What is the risk during removal? Nuclear explosion? Meltdown? Spreading radiation?

[MineralMan]

48. The risk is that the fuel rods will break as they're being removed.

That would cause additional contamination, and might make it even more difficult to remove other fuel rod assemblies.

However, if they are left there and a major earthquake occurs, which could happen at any time, the entire structure might collapse, which could make removing the fuel rods impossible, and could cause too much nuclear material to come into contact and might lead to a meltdown, partial or complete. That would be a disaster of unknown proportions.

Clearly, removing the fuel rod assemblies before that happens is a better choice, which is what they're about to begin. The process has been planned and tested in a limited way. Now, they think they're ready to remove the fuel rod assemblies, which will be stored in storage pools somewhere on the site. If they are successful, the danger of the structure collapsing will be eliminated. Even if there are problems, if they can remove the bulk of the fuel rod assemblies, the danger will be drastically reduced.

The area is still heavily contaminated, of course. The project is quite hazardous and there are still unknown factors.

[Junkdrawer]

49. Good question. Honest answer is No One Knows for Sure.....

THAT'S what a professional engineering firm's first job would be.

We know that if/when rods snap they will emit radioactive Xenon which will need to be vented.

We know there are risks of inadvertent criticality. (Not sure about prompt criticality).

Risks that, if done wrong, fuel will not be able to be moved.

Etc.

Etc.

If TEPCO has done a risk analysis, I'm not aware of it.

[Demo_Chris]

57. The experts are doing the best that is humanly possible to do. What else need be said? nt

[bunnies]

58. Not all that long ago I learned on DU that it wasnt really a big deal.

Wasnt like it was going to pollute the entire ocean or something. Oh, and bananas.

[closeupready]

60. Another important point: there's a bunny with a pancake on its head.

Just so that we are all considering the big picture here.

[bunnies]

61. And let us not foget...

Oolong the bunny is from... wait for it... JAPAN!