I'll feel safer about nuclear power when the industry looks more shaken by what happened in Japan.

[stockholmer]

Shaken to the Core

http://www.slate.com/id/2290100/

"On Wednesday, Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, testified before a Senate subcommittee about the nuclear crisis in Japan. He assured the committee of "our continuing confidence in the safety of the U.S. commercial nuclear reactor fleet." In their opening statements, Jaczko and William Levis, an executive representing the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute, used variants of the words assure, ensure, and confident 21 times.

I don't want to hear the industry and its regulators talk this way after Fukushima. I don't want to hear confidence and assurances. I want to hear humility and a ruthless re-examination of assumptions.

I understand the need to put Fukushima in perspective. I agree with Jaczko and Levis about the relative safety of nuclear power. Measured by accidents, direct fatalities, and indirect health damage, nuclear energy is many times safer than fossil fuel production. It's even safer than hydroelectricity, which has killed thousands of people in dam failures. But the key to nuclear safety isn't confidence. It's doubt.

The power of modern science comes from its relentless self-scrutiny. Nothing is certain; everything is open to challenge. Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, distilled the essence of the enterprise: We test hypotheses against reality not to prove them, which is impossible, but to falsify or modify them............................................"


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
interesting article from a moderate pro-nuclear perspective that raises troubling issues

At the end of the day, the dual issues of spent fuel storage and distinct possibilities of nuclear disaster (such as we see now in Japan) far outweigh the advantages.

[leveymg]

1. They still haven't moved out of the denial stage.

We keep hearing the same idiotic rationalizations:

* The damage was all due to the Tsunami;

* The industry will learn from this accident and will be safer;

* This accident was good because it will lead to accelerated construction of new (presumably) safer plants.

* etc.

Like someone standing next to a fatal car crash they, themselves, caused, and thinking aloud about what kind of new vehicle they'll buy next. These people have a long way to go before they actually learn anything from this.

[CrossChris]

2. They've already factored this stuff into the equation----they couldn't give less of a shit

Take it from the Gulf Coast. We are garbage to them. They cheer our deaths. If this happens here, they will start a smear campaign led by the usual suspects to vilify the victims, the mainstream media will parrot it, and mainstream America will accept what happened and move on. The survivors will jump up and down screaming, waving their hands for medical attention, and financial relief that will never come.

More talking points will be circulated, and America will move on. Better to face up to it now than on the heels of one of these tragedies. I don't know if other regions of the country are ready for how little value industry and our government places on human life.

[spin]

3. The incident at Fukushima is not over ...

There have been reports of a strange blue light from reactor #!. If true this might indicate a "localized criticality."

By the time this fiasco is over, future planned nuclear power plants in the U.S. will probably be mere figments of the imagination for power companies.

[CoffeeCat]

4. What does a localized criticality mean?

Does that mean it could blow up like a bomb?

The problem for me with this entire scenario--is that the verbiage, the reactions and the
information that should be given to the citizens of the world--are weak. That does not match
with what seems to be happening.

I'm no nuclear physicist, but this situation sounds like it has gone from bad to worse--with the
experts all understanding that bad-to-worse was highly likely.

I just read in the NYTimes that Cesium levels that are double the amount that was leaked at Chernobyl--
have been found as far away as 25 miles from the plant. However, the government is keeping the evacuation
zone at 18 miles from the plant. Given the Cesium found, they still have no plans to move the evacuation
zone.

The facts, and the potential for utter disaster FOR THE WORLD doesn't jive with the lack of information that
we are getting. This is being treated as just another news story. That NYTimes Cesium story was on page 10!

From the article:
"On Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said a soil sample from Iitate, a village of 7,000 people about 25 miles northwest of the plant, showed very high concentrations of cesium 137 — an isotope that produces harmful gamma rays, accumulates in the food chain and persists in the environment for hundreds of years.

The cesium levels were about double the minimums found in the area declared uninhabitable around the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, raising the question whether the evacuation zones around Fukushima should be extended beyond the current 18 miles. On Thursday, the Japanese government said it had no plans to expand the zone."

[spin]

5. It means the partial meltdown of the fuel in the reactor ...

may be emitting dangerous bursts of heat and radioactivity that might endanger workers at the facility.

This does not mean an imminent explosion is likely to occur. There is a possibility that the melted core of the reactor might melt though all containment and into the ground and if it contacts ground water the result would be a steam explosion with a high release of radiation.

In the worst case scenario, the molten reactor core could penetrate the containment vessel and hit ground water. The combination of molten radioactive material and water could cause an enormous steam explosion which would spread radioactive contamination over a large area. In addition, the ground water itself would likely be severely contaminated, and its flow could carry the contamination far afield.

***snip***

A nuclear meltdown is also colloquially known as the China syndrome, from the humorously exaggerated notion that molten reactor material would burrow from the United States through the center of the earth and emerge in China, as popularized by the 1979 film, The China Syndrome. This has usually been meant jokingly (including in the film): to bore through the Earth to China, the molten fissile material would have to go both with gravity and then against gravity, and also somehow manage to withstand the hotter material at the core of the planet. In reality, a melting reactor is estimated to be able to sink at most 15 meters; once radioactive slag reached the water table beneath the plant, the enormous steam release could throw the material into the air, for it to land as fallout across a wide area.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Nuclear_meltdown

The situation has indeed gotten worse and in my opinion will continue to do so. I hope the brave workers at the plant can regain control, but I fear it may already be too late.

More modern reactors may be safer but the continued use of these older poorly designed reactors in Japan may have doomed the entire industry. It's hard for me to see any advantage of nuclear power that isn't offset by the danger it presents.

[CoffeeCat]

7. In your opinion, could the consequences...

...of this disaster be global and very serious?

Are you personally preparing in any way?

Thanks for any info you may share.

[AndyTiedye]

6. The Melted Fuel Flows together and Reaches Critical Mass

and starts emitting lots of gamma rays and making nasty isotopes.
Kinda like getting a zillion chest X-rays all at once for the
poor sods working in there when it happens.

Since it is not under much pressure it won't stay that way for long,
the energy released tends to blow the critical mass apart
before it can turn into a
:nuke:

The shape of the reactor causes the molten uranium/plutonium to pool together at the bottom,
so it is likely to go critical more and more frequently as the remaining fuel melts,
until the reactor containment eventually fails completely.

[CoffeeCat]

8. Thank you for tha explanation...and can I ask...

...what happens when/if the reactor containment fails completely, as you said?

Just trying to understand all of this.

Thank you for any information. :)

[AndyTiedye]

9. The Radioactive S#!† Hits the Groundwater, causing a huge steam explosion

…which propels the whole mess high up into the atmosphere.

The spent fuel pools are suspended above the reactors! If the explosion destroys the spent fuel pool, it would propel plutonium fuel-rod bits up into the air too.

The reactors are very close together, so a full meltdown and explosion in one would likely cause major damage to the reactor(s) next to it.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

And what happens to 5 and 6 if the area becomes too radioactive for anyone to go there and maintain the cooling systems?

:nuke::nuke: