Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Rob A. Bank · 14-04-2011 02:11PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThXU0a6QcBQ

Rob A. Bank · 14-04-2011 02:13PM

.

http://www.asrltd.com/japan/plume.html

Model of radioactive seawater impact map (update: 13.04.11)

Use the slider(top left) to advance the spread.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-04-2011 06:17PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Chris Busby from the European committee on radiation in London estimates that eventually over 400000 could develop cancer within a 200 KM proximity of Fukushima.

Chris Busby is widely regarded as a crank and is not qualified in the areas of physics, medicine or statistics - his qualifications are in analytical chemistry.

He also states that much of the specialized robotic equipment brought in to clean up the mess will give trouble and may not be be suitable for the job because high levels of radiation will zap the integrated circuitry in PCB's.

Already been discussed on this thread, electronics are far more radiation resistant than humans.

Overheal · 14-04-2011 08:07PM

ninja900 wrote: »

Already been discussed on this thread, electronics are far more radiation resistant than humans.

though not impervious. in fact most server hardware has to incorporate expensive error correction methods in memory storage/ram to combat background radiation, as the right particle impacting the right spot where a physical memory address is stored can corrupt it, changing 1s to 0s which while sounding mundane can lead to crashes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction

Electrical or magnetic interference inside a computer system can cause a single bit of DRAM to spontaneously flip to the opposite state. It was initially thought that this was mainly due to alpha particles emitted by contaminants in chip packaging material, but research[6] has shown that the majority of one-off ("soft") errors in DRAM chips occur as a result of background radiation, chiefly neutrons from cosmic ray secondaries, which may change the contents of one or more memory cells or interfere with the circuitry used to read/write them. There was some concern that as DRAM density increases further, and thus the components on DRAM chips get smaller, while at the same time operating voltages continue to fall, DRAM chips will be affected by such radiation more frequently—since lower energy particles will be able to change a memory cell's state.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-04-2011 09:44PM

I didn't really want to go over that again Overheal as it was all done in this thread already, I've been there done that and nuked chips with enough gammas to kill a human almost instantly, and observed the (very limited) effects.

As I said previously, DRAMS are vulnerable to bit errors - but up to a point you can effectively mitigate that with ECC and maybe a little light shielding. Actually once DRAMs started to be commercialized in the 70s they discovered that there was enough (natural) uranium contamination in the chip casings to cause occasional bit errors due to alpha particles - coating the die with a thin layer of extra-pure polymer was enough to block it and cheaper than trying to get all traces of contamination out of the chip casing.

But you don't need to use DRAM at all, you can use static RAM which is expensive and power-hungry but orders of magnitude more resistant to radiation. You can also concentrate the sensitive components into a small area of your robot, and heavily shield that area. The rest of your robot is basically iron and hydraulics and not sensitive to radiation. Things like CCD sensors will degrade due to radiation but can be made redundant, or changed periodically.

There are already (and have been for decades) radiation-hardened chips intended for use in space vehicles and will function in an irradiated environment for years.

Rob A. Bank · 15-04-2011 01:49PM

ninja900 wrote: »

Already been discussed on this thread, electronics are far more radiation resistant than humans.

They were offered radiation resistant robots and look what happened... as TEPCO allowed the situation to go from bad to worse.

"When the first reactor sustained damage in faraway Japan, experts in France, a country that relies heavily on nuclear energy, immediately made a number of special robots available. The machines can be operated by remote control in places where radiation levels are too high for human beings to work safely.

The high-tech helpers have been standing at the Chateauroux airport, boxed up and ready for shipment, for the last two weeks.

The Japanese had initially turned down the French offer, because it was coming from a company that is partially owned by Areva, the world's largest nuclear supplier. They felt that the government in Paris should have offered them the robots instead.

Japan, a leader in the development and use of robots, was also reluctant to accept offers of machinery from the United States and Germany, and even the equipment it did accept hasn't been put to use yet."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,754868,00.html

Rob A. Bank · 15-04-2011 01:54PM

How TEPCO is treating the workers...

"Workers without Dosimeters

Most of the men wear white protective suits made of Tyvek, a paper-like synthetic material normally used in painters' gear. Neither he nor his coworkers have worn dosimeters, complains worker Masataka Hishida. It is one of the few inadequacies the Japanese nuclear regulatory agency has felt the need to point out. The men were not even given special shoes, says Hishida. The supervisors apparently told them to simply cover their shoes with plastic...

90 Percent of those Exposed to Radiation Work for Subcontractors

The soldiers waging this battle are often ordinary contract workers of the sort Japanese electric utilities have always used to perform the dirty work in reactors. According to data from Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission, 90 percent of the employees exposed to radiation in Japanese nuclear plants work for subcontractors, not for the companies that own the plants."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,754868,00.html

:mad:

Rob A. Bank · 15-04-2011 02:06PM

A series of four articles from a Japanese source, detailing TEPCO's dithering and incompetence in the face of an unprecidented Nuclear Disaster.

TEPCO tardy on N-plant emergency
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110411004567.htm

Absent TEPCO execs slowed crucial action
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110412006319.htm

One crisis after another harried TEPCO's response
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110413004031.htm

TEPCO 'solution' caused problems of its own
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110414006040.htm

Unbelievable stuff !

:mad:

andrew · 16-04-2011 12:49AM

I think TEPCO need to be cut a little slack. I would imagine dealing with a nuclear meltdown is quite difficult.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-04-2011 08:42AM

andrew wrote: »

I think TEPCO need to be cut a little slack. I would imagine dealing with a nuclear meltdown is quite difficult.

Not having all workers wear dosimeters is inexcusable though - provided sufficient dosimeters are available of course.

Coles · 16-04-2011 09:41AM

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

Overall it's still very serious, with workers attempting to stabilise the reactors while restoring electricity to instruments and the reactor cooling pumps. There is the problem of what to do with the radioactive seawater that was first used to cool the reactors, and some of the low-level radioactive water was dumped into the sea in order to free up storage for more radioactive water.

At the moment it's not nearly as bad as the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, in which a great deal of the reactor core was blasted into the atmosphere and continued to burn over several weeks, exposed to the elements and releasing more radiation into the atmosphere. I don't think any of the reactor cores or nuclear fuel have escaped their containment vessels (which Chernobyl's RBMK reactors did not have).

If you need a catchup on the situation, the IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log is a good place for updates and news on the situation. Also, there's the Summary of reactor unit status (13 April 2011, 11:00 UTC).

An important thing about the Level 7 International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) rating is that it encompasses all incidents and accidents at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. Prior to the new rating Units 1, 2 and 3 were rated as Level 5 (similar to Three Mile Island, 1979 or Goiania, 1987) whereas Unit 4 was rated as Level 3 (Sellafield, 2005).

I believe you're mistaken. The announcement that the crisis was being upgraded to Level 7 was based on the cumulative radiation release from Reactor 1, 2 and 3. It does not take into account the radiation release from the fuel pool fire and continuing exposure at Reactor 4.

The radiation release from the fuel pool is likely to be of a far more serious nature and of a far greater scale than from reactor 1, 2 and 3.

Link to Youtube - The IAEA announcment

I think it is important to look at what has happened at Reactor 4.

Link to Youtube - Fairewinds

AND it's ongoing. There is evidence that radiation is being released by fission from the fuel pool. Unlike the reactors, here is no containment to prevent this radioactive release and it makes efforts to contain the radiation extremely slow and dangerous.

Radiation Surge's above Reactor 4's Fuel Pool. - The Japan Times (14th April 2011)

Radiation has risen to high levels above the spent-fuel pool at reactor No. 4 and its temperature is rising, the nuclear safety agency said Wednesday, indicating the fuel rods have been further damaged and are emitting radioactive substances.

The radiation level 6 meters above the spent-fuel storage pool at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was measured at 84 millisieverts per hour Tuesday. Normally, it's 0.1 microsievert.

The temperature of the pool was 90 degrees, compared with 84 before it caught fire on March 15 in a suspected hydrogen explosion, the agency said.

"It's quite an amount," figured Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

TEPCO confirms damage to part of No. 4 unit's spent nuclear fuel - KyodoNews (14th April 2011)

According to TEPCO, radioactive iodine-131 amounting to 220 becquerels per cubic centimeter, cesium-134 of 88 becquerels and cesium-137 of 93 becquerels were detected in the pool water. Those substances are generated by nuclear fission.

Rob A. Bank · 16-04-2011 07:04PM

The predominant offshore wind direction over the last month has saved the islands of Japan from the worst of the fallout from the damaged nuclear plants.

However the wind direction is changing over the next few days.

The model of I-131 plume from the Austrian Weather Service suggests that over the 17th and 18th, the main island will be polluted with whatever is being released into the atmosphere from Fukushima.

http://www.zamg.ac.at/pict/wetter/sonderwetter/fuku/20110416_I-131_FUKU.gif

Rob A. Bank · 16-04-2011 07:07PM

TEPCO and the “more than” issue

“Tokyo Electric said radiation at the surface of the water near Reactor No. 2 was measured at more than 1,000 millisieverts an hour”

Really useful information that :-/ … like the Police saying when describing someone of interest, his age was more than one year and his height was more than 1cm.

This (so-called) reading could indicate 1001 mSv/hour, or it could indicate 5000, 20,000 mSv/hour, or more… take your pick !

They are well able to measure higher levels at other times/places, and more importantly, how can "safe" worker exposure times be determined in the absence an accurate reading ?

"More than" was just a way for TEPCO to keep everyone ignorant of the severity of the problem and to have ‘plausible deniability’ of the true level, should any of the workers sue them for radiation injuries.

:mad:

el diablo · 16-04-2011 07:16PM

You're loving this, aren't you, Rob? :rolleyes:

Wonder will you post here if there's any "good" news...

up for anything · 16-04-2011 07:54PM

andrew wrote: »

I think TEPCO need to be cut a little slack. I would imagine dealing with a nuclear meltdown is quite difficult.

That is an incredibly naive comment to make! :eek:

Surely they should have emergency/contingency plans in place. I realise they are coping with a double natural disaster but whatever happened to risk management or whatever they call it. TEPCO and the Japanese goverment/nuclear regulatory authorities are entirely responsible for what happens. I'd imagine that they all made a decent profit from the power supplied up until now and some of those profits should have been ploughed back into safety and back-up plans for worst case scenario.

Reminds me of the banking crises here... lots of fat cats have made their escape and the rest of us left to deal with the ensuing fallout.

Rob A. Bank · 16-04-2011 10:27PM

up for anything wrote: »

Reminds me of the banking crises here... lots of fat cats have made their escape and the rest of us left to deal with the ensuing fallout.

Good point... the Japanese taxpayer will be stiffed with the cleanup bill, just like we are for the banks here.

The same old story with private companies that are judged 'too big to fail', therefore privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

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

Rob A. Bank · 16-04-2011 10:32PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZlYe6GlowY

In fact the onshore winds in Japan will persist until the 20th of this month as shown in this model of the radioactive plume from a Norwegian weather site.

gbee · 18-04-2011 10:12AM

Listening to the NHK news and the updates at Fukushima the news went to the USA and its 100 tornado event which the news reader said two of them slammed into two nuclear power plants causing a scram and the back up generator operation to engage.

After a successful shut-down, the reactors were restarted and no damage reported.

Rob A. Bank · 18-04-2011 05:39PM

gbee wrote: »

.

After a successful shut-down, the reactors were restarted and no damage reported.

Not restarted quite yet...

"Dominion officials said Sunday that a tornado apparently touched down on the switchyard supporting the nuclear power station and the facility's access road, cutting off the electrical feed from the grid to the station. A backup generator kept power running to both reactors.

One of the two main reactors has been reconnected to the plant's grid.

"We are trying to restore the second feed," said Dominion spokesperson Dan Genest. That process will take several days, he said.

Once the second feed is restored, then the power station will return to full power, Genest said. On Monday morning, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website still showed both reactors at zero capacity."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/weather/dp-nws-storm-surry-nuclear-20110417,0,730234.story

gbee · 18-04-2011 05:53PM

Thanks for the update, my search brought up the movie!!!!

So one plant hit with two reactors and not fully functional yet.

andrew · 18-04-2011 09:45PM

up for anything wrote: »

That is an incredibly naive comment to make! :eek:

Surely they should have emergency/contingency plans in place. I realise they are coping with a double natural disaster but whatever happened to risk management or whatever they call it. TEPCO and the Japanese goverment/nuclear regulatory authorities are entirely responsible for what happens. I'd imagine that they all made a decent profit from the power supplied up until now and some of those profits should have been ploughed back into safety and back-up plans for worst case scenario.

Reminds me of the banking crises here... lots of fat cats have made their escape and the rest of us left to deal with the ensuing fallout.

Yeah, I presume there are many contingencies in place for events like this, and it would appear that those at Fukushima have done what the rule book would say one should do, when they could. My point is that the people handling this situation aren't super human Japanese robots, they're still people at the end of the day. Ordinary managers who never really thought they'd be responsible for the health of thousands/millions of people. Mistakes, I think, are inevitable, and I don't think it's right to look at every little thing which was done wrong and demand some sort of retributive justice from people who are clearly trying their best. Not that anyone here was demanding such a thing, but it's just an impression i get having read some news reports etc.

nyarlothothep · 18-04-2011 09:47PM

Pity the government didn't take Michio Kaku's advice, the military directed by a team of expert scientists would be a much more effective and rapid solution rather than an incompetent private company handling something its way out of its depth for.

Rob A. Bank · 19-04-2011 12:23AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9I4foG6HeA

EU raises level of nuclear radiation allowed in ships and cargo imported from Japan

Makes one wonder what the hell these so called ‘safe’ levels mean and who exactly the EU are trying to protect… if they revise upwards when the protection is needed most !

Certainly not protecting EU citizens !

:eek:

andrew · 19-04-2011 12:25AM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

EU raises level of nuclear radiation allowed in ships and cargo imported from Japan

Makes one wonder what the hell these so called ‘safe’ levels mean and who exactly the EU are trying to protect… if they revise upwards when the protection is needed most !

Certainly not protecting EU citizens !

:eek:

Ah here now, that's scaremongering. The level has been raised from an amount which is harmless to an amount which is still harmless.

Rob A. Bank · 19-04-2011 12:27AM

How many square kilometers of Japan will be added to this list of 20 ?

Atomic Deserts : A Survey of the World's Radioactive No-Go Zones

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,756369,00.html

Rob A. Bank · 19-04-2011 11:20AM

andrew wrote: »

Ah here now, that's scaremongering. The level has been raised from an amount which is harmless to an amount which is still harmless.

So why raise it then ?

And if you think low dose radiation is harmless perhaps you should educate yourself...

"The most authoritative current estimates of the health effects of low dose ionising radiation are contained in the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation VII report from the US National Academy of Sciences (BEIR VII).

This report reflects the substantial weight of scientific evidence that there is no exposure to ionising radiation that is risk-free. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk.

BEIR VII estimatesthat each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia) of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in 17,500 increased risk of cancer death.

But while radiation protection standards are typically based on adult males, it is important to note that not everyone faces the same level of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age) the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; and female infants are twice as susceptible as male infants.

Females face a lower risk of leukemia, but a 50% greater risk of developing a more common solid tumour, so their overall risk of cancer related to radiation exposure is 40% greater than for males. Fetuses in the womb are the most radiation-sensitive of all.

http://theconversation.edu.au/articles/just-in-case-you-missed-it-heres-why-radiation-is-a-health-hazard-315

Rob A. Bank · 19-04-2011 11:23AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9WbcOrrGuk

Latest update from Fairwinds.

Turtwig · 19-04-2011 11:40AM

Regarding safety limits. These levels are not used as a baseline for when exactly something becomes hazardous, they are usually set at a level well below the level where the substance becomes a threat to human health. Obviously having a safety level based right on the limit of harm to humans would be silly and impractical.

Regarding this 1 in 100,000 stuff. Firstly what is the increased risk? 1%, .05%, .0005%? Secondly, and more significantly, when it comes to statistics like 1 in 100,000 you gotta remember that even if the calculation is 99% accurate (it isn't) the person you say who will get leukemia will be 99% likely to be an error. That probably doesn't make sense, but if you work the maths it's true.
Unless you can say your experimental evidence and calculations are 100% accurate, all things being equal 1 in 100,000 actually means sweet f**k all.:D

Also, no structure of any sort has emergency plans for magnitude 9.0 earthquake plus tsunami and 400 aftershocks. Just saying.

Rob A. Bank · 19-04-2011 03:55PM

The US National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.”

The US Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer … any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.”

So do you believe the experts or the pro-nuclear apologists here ?

novarock · 19-04-2011 03:58PM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

The US National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.”

The US Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer … any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.”

So do you believe the experts or the pro-nuclear apologists here ?

Everyone knows that radiation "Can" cause cancers.. I dont understand your motivations behind what you post..

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Comments