Japan may raise nuke accident severity level to highest 7 from 5

[whosinpower]

Source: kyodo news

According to an evaluation by the INES, level 7 accidents correspond with a release into the external environment radioactive materials equal to more than tens of thousands terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.

Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours.

The commission says the release has since come down to under 1 terabecquerel per hour and said that it is still examining the total amount of radioactive materials released.

The commission also released a preliminary calculation for the cumulative amount of external exposure to radiation, saying it exceeded the yearly limit of 1 millisieverts in areas extending more than 60 kilometers to the northwest of the plant and about 40 km to the south-southwest of the plant


Read more: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.html

---

If this is true - those evacuated will never return home.

[Ian David]

1. They might have to claim some new real estate in China. n/t

[damntexdem]

2. Better create an 8.

Level 7 is just for minor things like Chernobyl.

;-)

[ozone_man]

17. What happened to 6?

It's scary when they skip like that.

I definitely agree, an 8 is required.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Or create an "8."

:argh:
Nobody* :eyes: could have forseen it.


*Except for the people who get ridiculed for forseeing pretty much everything.

[hlthe2b]

4. But didn't Gallop tell us only the "uneducated" oppose nuclear power?

Some damned poll the NUKE propagandists are now pushing (as well as their compatriots here and on other websites)....:eyes:

[Kelvin Mace]

8. I trust that the technology could be safe

I don't believe for one minute it can be safe if done for profit.

But then, I'm well read, not "educated", whatever that means these days.

[hlthe2b]

9. So, how many "not for profit" nuke power plants are you aware of?

Or, for that matter, "not for profit" oil refineries, coal mines, and drilling operations?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Here's one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C5%A1ko_Nuclear_Power_Plant

State owned power company.

[hlthe2b]

14. Umm. We were talking about the US... This is a US poll...

Mexico's oil is all nationalized too... So WHAT? Hardly germaine to the issue at hand in this country.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Perhaps you should re-read the trail of posts that led to my response

and point out where it was restricted to the US.

Saying 'the technology could be safe if you remove profit motive' is hardly exclusive of the rest of the world. Especially given there are countries without a profit motive/socialized power companies operating state reactors.

[hlthe2b]

16. His comment was to my posting... You then replied to that comment...

I think perhaps you should put your comment in appropriate context. My subthread was about US attitudes towards Nuclear Power and a US Gallop poll.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. And what do *US* attitudes toward nuclear power have to do with his response

that the technology CAN be safe IF there is no profit motive?


Nationalizing our nuclear power plants might be a resonable way to improve safety, especially considering the government is on the hook for insuring and regulating them.

[hlthe2b]

20. re:

1. Irrelevant to a US post on attitudes towards nuke power since it has no bearing to our situation.
2. Further irrelevant because we not only don't have any not-for-profit power plants, but have no possibility of nationalizing. Given the attacks on regulation, I'm not sure that would be the panacea that you suggest, but it would certainly be a better situation than we have now, where the US taxpayer assumes all the risk for companies that assume only the profit.
3. Certainly has no relevancy to a questionable poll trying to suggest only the ignorant oppose nuclear power in the US.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Inline

1. Irrelevant to a US post on attitudes towards nuke power since it has no bearing to our situation.
Response suggested a method of fixing our current nuclear power ownership for profit issues that conflict with safety. VERY relevant to our situation.

2. Further irrelevant because we not only don't have any not-for-profit power plants, but have no possibility of nationalizing. Given the attacks on regulation, I'm not sure that would be the panacea that you suggest, but it would certainly be a better situation than we have now, where the US taxpayer assumes all the risk for companies that assume only the profit.
Unproven. In fact, A single accident at this point, could lead to exactly that. The nearly-eaten-through steel pressure vessel raised some credible calls for it already.

3. Certainly has no relevancy to a questionable poll trying to suggest only the ignorant oppose nuclear power in the US.
No opinion.

[AndyTiedye]

25. (Cough) Chernobyl

There were no evil corporations or capitalists involved in the building or operation of Chernobyl.
No profit motive anywhere in the system.

Meltdowns have no particular respect for one economic system over another.
All economic systems suffer from similar organizational dynamics,
and human nature is pretty much the same everywhere.

So we saw the people in charge in Fukushima, just like those in Chernobyl,
pretending that everything was under control as the radiation spews
into the countryside and the reactors melt down.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. While the Soviets were not motivated by profits

they were still trying to build reactors "on the cheap", which is pretty much the same thing.

I think there are far safer reactor designs out there. Hell, there are far safer conventional power plants out there, but they will NEVER be used while profit is a factor in the decision process.

Worse still, THE most effective energy saver, conservation, will not be used while private corporations run the system, since they make a profit by selling power, not by encouraging people to use LESS power.

Long and short of my view, nationalize the energy infrastructure.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Actually my point

You can have profit, or you can have safety, pick one. The ramification of profit over safety at a nuke has far reaching consequence, but fossil plants kill more people for the same reasons.

[bananas]

24. No, you can't make it "safe"

There will always be a risk of large-scale catastrophes.
The only thing you can do is to theoretically reduce the frequency of them.
However, reality and theory don't always agree.
The best that you can do is to reduce the theoretical risks to an "acceptable" level,
however not everyone will agree what's "acceptable".

There are very good reality-based reasons that the risk analysis for new reactor designs are overoptimistic.
France is having a lot of quality control problems building its new reactors.
Chinese scientists are warning about QC problems with their new reactors.

[Prometheus Bound]

26. I read one good qualifier recently.

No Reason To Run From Nuclear Power

Where do we go from here? Assess, adjust, build
March 17, 2011

There should, indeed, be a pause to see what can be gleaned from the still-unfolding experience in Japan. But so far, at least, it appears that nuclear power is safe if reactors are properly sited, facilities are kept up to snuff and protocols are scrupulously observed.

http://articles.courant.com/2011-03-17/news/hc-ed-japan-0317-20110317_1_nuclear-power-reactors-energy-mix

In other words there's no guarantee it will ever be safe, even according to the most optimistic nuclear supporters.

[CJvR]

5. No doubt nasty.

But still 10 PBq for a few hours are a bit from a 7.

Mayak 1957: rated 6 2 - 50 MCi or 74 - 1850 PBq
Windscale 1957: rated 5 0,4 MCi or 13 PBq
Lake Karachay 1968: 5 MCi or 185 PBq
Lake Karachay today: 1200 MCi or 44400 PBq
TMI 1979: rated 5 13 MCI or 480 PBq
Chernobyl 1986: rated 7 1350 - 3200 MCi or 50000 - 120000 PBq

1 Ci = 37 GBq
yotta Y 10e24 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000
zetta Z 10e21 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000
exa E 10e18 1.000.000.000.000.000.000
peta P 10e15 1.000.000.000.000.000
tera T 10e12 1.000.000.000.000
giga G 10e9 1.000.000.000
mega M 10e6 1.000.000

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Holy SHIT, someone remembers Windscale!

I bow to you sir.

[CJvR]

27. Who can forget....

...the worlds largest hot air fan? (Political speaches a possible contender.)

A reactor design possibly even worse than Chernobyl, air cooled grafite moderated piles!
They are damn fortunate they had filters on the stacks, not in the original plans IIRC.

[Bosonic]

6. Criminy

It's getting closer to the just-off-the-coast-of-Uraguay Syndrome
(http://www.antipodemap.com/)

[aquart]

21. I don't know what that means. What does that mean?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. It's a play on the meltdown-related 'china syndrome' meme.

That map shows what is on the opposite side of the planet from any given point.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. I can't see TEPCO doing this on its own

unless there is some money to be had, or responsibility to be evaded.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Who are you referring to?

[bananas]

19. No longer "may" - they did raise it - news story posted in LBN

LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4809957