The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?  (Read 10148 times)

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Some are talking about burying the plant under concrete, my issue with that, is that first it never worked in Chernobyl, second there are many reactors here and they would letting them all melt down under the concrete, which would then heavily pollute the earth below all the waste rods and the current active rods would melt. Third or fourth that Japan is a tiny island and shouldn't have any amount of it's land lost.

So my question is what do you all think the best answer is here?


 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #1 on: 23/03/2011 06:37:51 »
It's looking a lot like they'll have to entomb at least some of the reactors. I don't think there are too many other options. The longer they wait, the more radiation vents into the general vicinity, and the greater the exposure to the workers trying to get it under control.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #2 on: 23/03/2011 11:45:04 »
Take a look here for a more balanced view how the power station problems are being dealt with.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #3 on: 23/03/2011 18:51:25 »
Take a look here for a more balanced view how the power station problems are being dealt with.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

No offence but The IAEA are a joke.

feature=BFQL

Watch from 4.30 on the 16th 6 days after Japan is struck and the nuclear problems have been raging the IAEA decides that it should send a team maybe. No doubt they spent two days thinking about who should go.


feature=BFQL

Watch from 2.50 IAEA and U.N conpriacy to hide harmful effects of radiation.

The IAEA and the U.N are just puppet tools of industry!
« Last Edit: 23/03/2011 18:57:29 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #4 on: 23/03/2011 20:04:59 »
Some are talking about burying the plant under concrete, my issue with that, is that first it never worked in Chernobyl, second there are many reactors here and they would letting them all melt down under the concrete, which would then heavily pollute the earth below all the waste rods and the current active rods would melt. Third or fourth that Japan is a tiny island and shouldn't have any amount of it's land lost.

So my question is what do you all think the best answer is here?

It worked reasonably well in Chernobyl. The problem there is mainly the radioactive material that escaped before they could plug it with concrete.

There's no reason that the reactors will melt down. The nuclear reactors have been shut down since before the tsunami stuck. They are now kept warm by the decay heat of the waste products. This decay heat will dissipate reasonably quickly. After that there's no heat source to melt them so, as long as they wait a while before pouring the concrete there's no chance of a melt down.

Once it's buried under a layer of concrete there's no reason, in principle, why you couldn't re use the land. Since it will obviously be a hill, perhaps one use for it would be as "high ground" for people to run to if there's another tsunami.

Wybit.
Never trust anyone who is introduced by the media as someone with a book to sell.
In any event, we will see what happens. Presumably, if they close down the plant without the predicted "fire and brimstone" you will come back and apologise.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2011 20:09:39 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #5 on: 23/03/2011 21:15:04 »
Some are talking about burying the plant under concrete, my issue with that, is that first it never worked in Chernobyl, second there are many reactors here and they would letting them all melt down under the concrete, which would then heavily pollute the earth below all the waste rods and the current active rods would melt. Third or fourth that Japan is a tiny island and shouldn't have any amount of it's land lost.

So my question is what do you all think the best answer is here?

It worked reasonably well in Chernobyl. The problem there is mainly the radioactive material that escaped before they could plug it with concrete.

Not the case the ground areas arround the plant have high levels of leaked radiation from the melting core.

 

There's no reason that the reactors will melt down. The nuclear reactors have been shut down since before the tsunami stuck. They are now kept warm by the decay heat of the waste products. This decay heat will dissipate reasonably quickly. After that there's no heat source to melt them so, as long as they wait a while before pouring the concrete there's no chance of a melt down.

Once they start melting they start melting, they have already had parcial melt downs, under the ground with nothing to keep them cool they will all melt, why do think france stick their waste into the sea, to keep it cool!



Once it's buried under a layer of concrete there's no reason, in principle, why you couldn't re use the land. Since it will obviously be a hill, perhaps one use for it would be as "high ground" for people to run to if there's another tsunami.

No they will have to do they same thing that did at chenobyl, and today they are building a new protective building, that it is said, will last for the next 100 years in preventing any radiation realease, not forgetting that under ground the radiation can still spread.



Wybit.
Never trust anyone who is introduced by the media as someone with a book to sell.
In any event, we will see what happens. Presumably, if they close down the plant without the predicted "fire and brimstone" you will come back and apologise.


Hardly if you think Chenobyl was a success I don't think so.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #6 on: 23/03/2011 22:04:08 »
Just for a start, this "Once they start melting they start melting, they have already had parcial melt downs," is a contradiction in terms.

"No they will have to do they same thing that did at chenobyl, and today they are building a new protective building, that it is said, will last for the next 100 years in preventing any radiation realease, not forgetting that under ground the radiation can still spread."
Do you understand that Chernobyl was a much bigger accident?

 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #7 on: 23/03/2011 22:54:19 »
Just for a start, this "Once they start melting they start melting, they have already had parcial melt downs," is a contradiction in terms.

"No they will have to do they same thing that did at chenobyl, and today they are building a new protective building, that it is said, will last for the next 100 years in preventing any radiation realease, not forgetting that under ground the radiation can still spread."
Do you understand that Chernobyl was a much bigger accident?



Sorry Chenobyl is way smaller than this, Chenobyl was one reactor, it had a breach and a building explosion, at least 5% of it's fuel(radioactive material) got released, at ;east 5% some say up to 25%.

In Japan we have multiple reactors, four different plants having issues, Evacuations around two plants at fukushima 15 km apart. Two reactors have breached, there have been three possibly four building explosions, fires in reactor building 4 probably from the spent fuel pool. All of the Mark ones hold there waste above the reactors.

All the buildings that have lost power, have been having problems with the fuel pools, the amount of waste, in the tanks is huge, 9 reactors were stated as having problems, but we do not know the situation in the other plants, because not much information has been released.

We know there are three reactors at Fukushima diatchi, the clearing of people in the area around fukushima diani to the south also suggest a radiation release some where, then there are two other plants we know nothing about.

This is way beyond Chenoybl. The burning fuel in reactor four probably released more radiation then Chenobyl alone. Reactor three not only breached, had a building explosion, but it a Plutonium mox reactor, and the cause of much of the staff pull outs that have been happening, as it keeps releasing radiation and steams.   

they are lying about the radiation level some have been suggesting that as they are not even assessing in the radiation levels from the gases and that the actual numbers could be ten times the numbers they state. And current stated levels around the plant are 1,600 times Normal levels.

This is worse then Chenobyl, As for not trusting people that write books, You referenced your own book, on the other thread, maybe I should take your advice, but actually some people write books, not to make money but because they care about an issue, so I'll ignore that.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2011 23:26:37 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #8 on: 23/03/2011 23:43:41 »
People should know the truth about this situation, if I was in Japan for better or worse, I know, I would want to know what was happening, sadly the corporate industry and governments keep on lying, all about share price and profit, protecting image.

And those lies actaully do more damage than anything, because people look arround trying to find information they can trust, knowing they cannot trust the government or the industry.

Alex Jones on the radiation leaks his demo with water at 08.47
feature=channel_video_title

It's time the people in charge were honest and actaully looked out for their citizens.

Time we put people, before profit!
« Last Edit: 23/03/2011 23:51:54 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #9 on: 24/03/2011 00:11:54 »
Quote from a Russian woman "We used to believe/trust everything like idiots today we believe/trust nothing like idiots"
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #10 on: 24/03/2011 03:40:06 »

Time we put people, before profit!


That seems like a gigantic oversimplification.

People actually want electricity, and they want it at a reasonable price. Please try to support your argument with scientific evidence.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #11 on: 24/03/2011 05:57:52 »

Time we put people, before profit!


That seems like a gigantic oversimplification.

People actually want electricity, and they want it at a reasonable price. Please try to support your argument with scientific evidence.

At a reasonable price? Risks of cancer, other risks to health, risks to planetary life, problems with storage, loss of land, continual concerns and problems for those living near by and even for those not, risks from terrorism.... (this list could get long), the consistent disinformation put out by the industry loss of confidence and trust(which I cannot see them winning back, not after this travesty)....

well, Price of nuclear is hardly reasonable. Esp. When there are better alternatives. 

And it's not an over simplification the industry repeatedly puts their profits before the people they serve, there is plenty of historical evidence of that. Recently due to the problems in Japan, industry spokes persons have been saying all kinds of thing from "what happened at Fukushima is a testament to how safe nuclear technology is", to other people saying "Nuclear radiation in high doses could be good for you"
Anything for buck these people.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 06:06:10 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #12 on: 24/03/2011 06:59:47 »
"they are lying about the radiation level "

http://xkcd.com/285/

"This is worse then Chenobyl, As for not trusting people that write books, You referenced your own book, on the other thread, maybe I should take your advice, but actually some people write books, not to make money but because they care about an issue, so I'll ignore that."

Oddly there is no book on sale with my name on it so
what other thread do you mean?
What book do you mean?
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 07:17:38 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #13 on: 24/03/2011 07:41:01 »
lol @ "worse than Chernobyl"

Chernobyl had a graphite core which caught fire and exploded with no containment structure. Modern nuclear reactors are vastly different.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #14 on: 24/03/2011 15:20:58 »
If some doom merchants are to be beleived the power station problem is a worst disaster than the tsunami and earthquake !!!
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #15 on: 24/03/2011 17:03:18 »
lol @ "worse than Chernobyl"

Chernobyl had a graphite core which caught fire and exploded with no containment structure. Modern nuclear reactors are vastly different.


Lol "no containment structure" all of the storage pools have no containment! In, I do not know how many reactors, atleast 10 having problems.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #16 on: 24/03/2011 17:06:33 »
"they are lying about the radiation level "

http://xkcd.com/285/

...
Zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tepco-director-weeps-after-disclosing-truth-about-fukushima-disaster

Daily mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Fukushima-nulear-plant-radiation-leak-kill-people.html



"This is worse then Chenobyl, As for not trusting people that write books, You referenced your own book, on the other thread, maybe I should take your advice, but actually some people write books, not to make money but because they care about an issue, so I'll ignore that."

Oddly there is no book on sale with my name on it so
what other thread do you mean?
What book do you mean?

"Natural background levels of carbon monoxide range between 0.009–0.0198ppm".....
In my book, levels measured in parts per billion are trace levels, and I'm an analytical chemist, specialising in measuring stuff in air.

That quote maybe you meant something slightly different.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 17:23:29 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #17 on: 24/03/2011 17:12:49 »
If some doom merchants are to be beleived the power station problem is a worst disaster than the tsunami and earthquake !!!

RTAmerica, the big picture:-
feature=channel_video_title

"This going to be the news for some time"...

Chenobyl killed around a million people, depending who you ask. The radiation effects from Fukushima are certainly as big, they have not even been checking the gas releases, so again we do not really know how much radiation has been released, they admitted covering up the relaeases for the first week of this probelm but they have not given clear figures, as I said the gas releases they are not even monitoring.

The earth quake and tsunami are a tragedy an extreme one, now all the people of Japan and else where have to contend with radiation as well, problems is we do not know how bad the Fukushmia situation will be, we have to wait and see, but the lies are not helping.

I might be off line for a while now, peace to all, and god protect the people of Japan.

« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 18:06:00 by Wiybit »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #18 on: 24/03/2011 18:08:58 »

Chenobyl killed around a million people, depending who you ask.

CITATION NEEDED!  and yes I meant to shout.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #19 on: 24/03/2011 19:30:50 »
Ah yes!  We seem to have the makings of yet another conspiracy theory here.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #20 on: 24/03/2011 19:38:59 »

Chenobyl killed around a million people, depending who you ask.

CITATION NEEDED!  and yes I meant to shout.

Already Gave a citations: Vid previously posted,
feature=BFQL Watch 1.45.

New york acedemy of sciences

and Green peace have also made that claim before. That up to a million died as a result of Chenobly.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

Quote:"Drawing upon extensive data, the authors estimate the number of deaths worldwide due to Chernobyl fallout from 1986 through 2004 was 985,000, a number that has since increased."

There are plenty of sourses if you can be bothered to go looking!

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #21 on: 24/03/2011 19:42:20 »
OK, someone who doesn't recognise a metaphorical book when he sees one and cites the daily mail as evidence.
LOL
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #22 on: 24/03/2011 19:43:50 »
Ah yes!  We seem to have the makings of yet another conspiracy theory here.

what is a conspricy? It's when a group of people two or more agree in secreat to do something, So be sure, as governments and industry lie all the time to save face, they are totally conspriatorial.

The Guy from the comapny comming out last week, Fri-Sat and add mitting they had been hiding the radiation levels is a conspriacy, a group of people decided to lie, and conceal that lie, finally he broke down.
 

Offline assimilated

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #23 on: 24/03/2011 19:44:35 »

Alex Jones on the radiation leaks his demo with water at 08.47
feature=channel_video_title

Ah, that Alex Jones! A conspiracy theorist nutter who believes that the "Bohemian Grove" club sacrifices children and worships Satan.

I don't think I'll bother with this thread.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #24 on: 24/03/2011 19:46:28 »
OK, someone who doesn't recognise a metaphorical book when he sees one and cites the daily mail as evidence.
LOL

It's a news paper, it's hardly the Daily Star. I cited Zero hedge also. Maybe you should type what you mean a bit better, are you now saying the book you referenced is metaphorical?
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 19:52:05 by Wiybit »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What is the best option of dealing with Fukushima?
« Reply #24 on: 24/03/2011 19:46:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums