Nuclear meltdown in Japan reactor?

[Big Fitz]

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

Oh dear GOD! The Bacillus Rdeanii is spreading!!!!

Antibodies! ANTIBODIES!!!! 6%! ACK! Too late!

 

[Douger]

The trucks are in Georgia picking up the coffins to take to the west coast.
Have fun.

 

[The Gadfly]

could someone explain what is happening inside the rector...i saw where us nuclear experts were calling the flooding of the reactor (is flooding the right word) with sea water as a 'hail mary' pass.....o and one said...simply...we are in uncharted waters

Bones,
From what I gather, they really are in "uncharted waters". What they have, is a portion of the reactor core exposed (it should be covered with circulating water to cool it) As a result, the core overheats, and eventually the nuclear fuel rods themselves warp or begin to melt (partial meltdown). If the process continues it's possible for a hydrogen bubble to form within the containment structure (That's basically what happened at Three Mile Island). Apparently, this time, there actually was a hydrogen explosion (averted at TMI) which caused some damage to the containment building, with some venting of radioactive material.

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion. However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

 

[Zoom-boing]

could someone explain what is happening inside the rector...i saw where us nuclear experts were calling the flooding of the reactor (is flooding the right word) with sea water as a 'hail mary' pass.....o and one said...simply...we are in uncharted waters

Bones,
From what I gather, they really are in "uncharted waters". What they have, is a portion of the reactor core exposed (it should be covered with circulating water to cool it) As a result, the core overheats, and eventually the nuclear fuel rods themselves warp or begin to melt (partial meltdown). If the process continues it's possible for a hydrogen bubble to form within the containment structure (That's basically what happened at Three Mile Island). Apparently, this time, there actually was a hydrogen explosion (averted at TMI) which caused some damage to the containment building, with some venting of radioactive material.

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion. However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

Do they know how long it will take to cool the core, assuming the sea waters does cool it?

 

[The Gadfly]

could someone explain what is happening inside the rector...i saw where us nuclear experts were calling the flooding of the reactor (is flooding the right word) with sea water as a 'hail mary' pass.....o and one said...simply...we are in uncharted waters

Bones,
From what I gather, they really are in "uncharted waters". What they have, is a portion of the reactor core exposed (it should be covered with circulating water to cool it) As a result, the core overheats, and eventually the nuclear fuel rods themselves warp or begin to melt (partial meltdown). If the process continues it's possible for a hydrogen bubble to form within the containment structure (That's basically what happened at Three Mile Island). Apparently, this time, there actually was a hydrogen explosion (averted at TMI) which caused some damage to the containment building, with some venting of radioactive material.

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion. However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

Do they know how long it will take to cool the core, assuming the sea waters does cool it?

It's not entirely clear that they do; at least, I haven't seen a timetable, if anyone has one. I expect this could be dicey for perhaps 48 hours, perhaps more. They really have an unprecedented failure of s system designed with all the right redundant capacity; the Japanese know they live on an active seismic zone, and engineer their stuff with that in mind. Here, all the redundancy was simply overwhelmed. The reactors did what the were designed to do (execute an automatic scram), and damped the power=producing reaction. However, even after a successful scram, the core remains hot (even spent fuel has to be cooled). When the backup generators for the pumps failed due to damage, that meant a sufficient flow of water over the core could not be maintained. The backup batteries are a short-time last resort, meant to maintain some coolant pumping capacity for some hours (but not days). The result is a classic loss of cooling accident, which apparently (in at least one case) exposed a portion of the hot core, resulting in a partial meltdown (not terribly dire in and of itself, but of serious concern should it continue, or get worse).

Edit: Bear in mind, they not only have to achieve sufficient cooling to avert a steam explosion, they also have to be able to maintain cooling, after the immediate danger is over, or they'll have the same problem again; the fuel in that core is going to be generating quite a lot of heat, for a long time.Hopefully, this will buy them time to get their primary cooling back on line, though those reactors will be useless when this is over.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I do not know if this has been posted yet but looks like it's getting real bad in Japan. The title of the video was posted incorrect it's not three plants but three reactors out of five have started to meltdown.

 

[martybegan]

could someone explain what is happening inside the rector...i saw where us nuclear experts were calling the flooding of the reactor (is flooding the right word) with sea water as a 'hail mary' pass.....o and one said...simply...we are in uncharted waters

Bones,
From what I gather, they really are in "uncharted waters". What they have, is a portion of the reactor core exposed (it should be covered with circulating water to cool it) As a result, the core overheats, and eventually the nuclear fuel rods themselves warp or begin to melt (partial meltdown). If the process continues it's possible for a hydrogen bubble to form within the containment structure (That's basically what happened at Three Mile Island). Apparently, this time, there actually was a hydrogen explosion (averted at TMI) which caused some damage to the containment building, with some venting of radioactive material.

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion. However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

From the remains of the top of the outer building, the structure does not look like a form of containment, but merely weather protection. It appears to be a cladded steel structure, not the expected 4-8 feet of reinforced concrete you would expect of a secondary containment structure.

From the pictures seen, it probably blew due to ignition of off gassed hydrogen, allowed to vent from the vessel and the secondary containment. Hydrogen burns very fast, not enough power to damage the containment, but more than enough to blow the siding panels off the outer building.

 

[The Gadfly]

could someone explain what is happening inside the rector...i saw where us nuclear experts were calling the flooding of the reactor (is flooding the right word) with sea water as a 'hail mary' pass.....o and one said...simply...we are in uncharted waters

Bones,
From what I gather, they really are in "uncharted waters". What they have, is a portion of the reactor core exposed (it should be covered with circulating water to cool it) As a result, the core overheats, and eventually the nuclear fuel rods themselves warp or begin to melt (partial meltdown). If the process continues it's possible for a hydrogen bubble to form within the containment structure (That's basically what happened at Three Mile Island). Apparently, this time, there actually was a hydrogen explosion (averted at TMI) which caused some damage to the containment building, with some venting of radioactive material.

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion. However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

From the remains of the top of the outer building, the structure does not look like a form of containment, but merely weather protection. It appears to be a cladded steel structure, not the expected 4-8 feet of reinforced concrete you would expect of a secondary containment structure.

From the pictures seen, it probably blew due to ignition of off gassed hydrogen, allowed to vent from the vessel and the secondary containment. Hydrogen burns very fast, not enough power to damage the containment, but more than enough to blow the siding panels off the outer building.

Marty, thanks; I had not seen the picture; i'd guess then, that the secondary containment is inside that outer structure. That still leaves the question of whether the containment is completely intact or not. Is there any more news on that?

 

[martybegan]

Bones,
From what I gather, they really are in "uncharted waters". What they have, is a portion of the reactor core exposed (it should be covered with circulating water to cool it) As a result, the core overheats, and eventually the nuclear fuel rods themselves warp or begin to melt (partial meltdown). If the process continues it's possible for a hydrogen bubble to form within the containment structure (That's basically what happened at Three Mile Island). Apparently, this time, there actually was a hydrogen explosion (averted at TMI) which caused some damage to the containment building, with some venting of radioactive material.

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion. However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

From the remains of the top of the outer building, the structure does not look like a form of containment, but merely weather protection. It appears to be a cladded steel structure, not the expected 4-8 feet of reinforced concrete you would expect of a secondary containment structure.

From the pictures seen, it probably blew due to ignition of off gassed hydrogen, allowed to vent from the vessel and the secondary containment. Hydrogen burns very fast, not enough power to damage the containment, but more than enough to blow the siding panels off the outer building.

Marty, thanks; I had not seen the picture; i'd guess then, that the secondary containment is inside that outer structure. That still leaves the question of whether the containment is completely intact or not. Is there any more news on that?

Not yet, its still ranging from complete meltdown to complete containment and total cooldown of the reactors.

It will be the same as any industrial/mechanical accident, we wont know exactly what happened until they publish the report.

 

[Ravi]

Kudos to those working at the plants, feverishly trying to prevent a disaster...chance are some of them have lost family members already.

 

[Annie]

While not on my list of go to sources, best compilation I can find right now:

Nuclear and radiation accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.[11][12][13] In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year[15] in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.[16]...

 

[skeptic]

Do they know how long it will take to cool the core, assuming the sea waters does cool it?

I read it takes 10 days to cool after the shutdown begins. Longer if there is insufficient water.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Annie, the problem is not past record, but future potential. And right now that looks grim. And I see that your list did not include Chernobyl.

A secondary problem now is that what nature can do by accident, man can do by intention. Those that think in this manner now have a blueprint for creating a major disaster for at least 23 plants in the US.

 

[skeptic]

Now if cooling with seawater fails, the reactor WILL NOT go critical

That pov is not shared by everybody. It is considered very unlikely that these meltdowns will go critical but it is not at all impossible.

; modern power generating reactors are designed not to, so as to prevent the possibility of a nuclear explosion.

This is not a modern power gen reactor. It is the first one built in Japan and is 40 years old next month.

However, if the fuel temperature continues to rise, there is the possibility of a steam explosion which could potentially breach the (already damaged) containment building, and possibly the reactor vessel itself, resulting in a substantial radioactive release, and there's a potential for the hot fuel to burn its way through the surrounding soil and rock in the event of a reactor core breach, possibly leading to groundwater contamination. Not a pleasant scenario, but not a nuclear blast, by a long shot. The seawater/boric acid solution will make it impossible to ever get the reactor(s) on line again, but should have a good chance of cooling the core before a steam explosion occurs, provided they can get enough continuous flow to do the job..

The third reactor is a plutonium reactor and what I understand is that if it has to be vented the way the first two were before sea water was pumped in as a last ditch effort then the plutonium reactor will emit dangerous radioactive material. Not just non toxic hydrogen.

The fact that Japanese authorities have essentially destroyed something like 15% of their electrical power generation capacity to avert meltdowns speaks volumes toward the risks involved even at this point.

Japan is now gonna have to recover from the tsunami and quake with limited electrical energy for that task. The trains will not run on time. Fortunately with their economy in the toilet they have surplus industrial capacity to spare. But their infrastructure is badly damaged and the reactors keep failing.

 

[polarbear]

Polar........you should know by now..........the k00ks on the board would gladly buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000 if it was packaged just right. If its hysterical..............they buy.


Just take a gandor over and check out the total post counts of idiots like Ravi, Rightwinger and Dean. Now tell me these people have any social connections beyond their PC.. And you wonder why they are fcukking k00ks??

All I know , is that people with a head on their shoulder don`t freak out, over a little nuclear mishap, and I expected nothing different from You.
The rest of the experts here are Hollywood/YouTube movie and Wikipedia nuclear power plant experts...and think a partial "melt-down" means there are huge puddles of white hot molten weapons grade Uranium spilling out of their confines and a huge nuclear explosion + a "Plutonium mushroom cloud" is eminent.
All that happens in a partial "melt down" is that 1 or 2 fuel rods overheated and deformed.
I don`t know where all these instant experts get their information or their instant qualifications from.
At least I can say I have mine,

Don`t get confused by the wording "Your company" that is just standard lingo for an entity they don`t want to put into more explicit terms...
It will have to suffice, that at that time I did not work for MacDonalds trying to nuke Hamburgers

I don`t really care, it`s not too hard to find out my real name, my address and my profession, and when I did what for whom, so this is not that big of a secret either, I just don`t see why I should publish my year by year exam papers here,
but I did not get my education from YouTube or Wikipedia, just yesterday
With C.M.E. it can happen that You get deployed into a scenario just like that happening in Japan right now
and I Do HAVE TO KNOW what is what in a nuclear power plant...

And I bet any amount of money there are some Military Engineers from the U.S. and Canada at these locations right now, doing what they always do in Situations like that

We train at this facility, and that Power-plant there is almost exactly the same as the ones in Japan..
American Military Engineers get similar training, some of them trained along side with us at the same location...and none of them would be too concerned about this "melt down"..

Of Course "OldRocks" the asshole who claims he is a Millwright and doesn`t know a hammer form a screw driver will be here next and tell You with some "Global Warming" URL`s how a nuclear power plant really works, by quoting "Greenpeace" or Al Gore...

How about it "OldRocks" and the rest of You "experts" here, nobody stops You from going over there,...show `em how it`s done, like You show us "how to save the planet" in all the other idiot threads here

 

[skeptic]

While not on my list of go to sources, best compilation I can find right now:

Nuclear and radiation accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.[11][12][13] In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year[15] in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.[16]...

Great post!

The total impacts and cumulative risks of coal are almost never fully realized, coal plants disperse mercury and lead thru the atmosphere and into the oceans where they concentrate in the food chain ladders until we finally eat them as sea food.

Acid rain, mountain top and stream destruction, black lung, mining accidents, CO2 emissions, it goes on and on.

But to consider that coal mining actually distributes more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the nuclear industry does, and I don't doubt it, that just takes the cake.

Coal has to be burned in huge volumes to power our electrical needs. ordinary soils and rock contain low levels of radioactive material. But the volumes of material that are displaced to obtain the huge volumes of coal that we burn are enormous. So trace levels of radioactivity in tremendous volumes of earth add up. Even dust from mining would be a considerable radioactive component. Not to mention runoff into streams, coal smoke and underground water contaminated by disrupting so much earth.

I can not imagine how we can even consider using coal as a significant energy platform.

Now if we could only figure out a way to dispose of radioactive waste. Because the primary reason why coal produces more radioactive contamination than the nuclear industry is because the nuclear industry has yet to permanently dispose of ANY of their waste. They basically just store it in dumpsters on site and those dumpsters keep piling up.

Imagine never taking your toxic garbage to the landfill, instead just buying more and more garbage cans and filling them and stacking them in your back yard for 60 years......

 

[martybegan]

While not on my list of go to sources, best compilation I can find right now:

Nuclear and radiation accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.[11][12][13] In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year[15] in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.[16]...

Great post!

The total impacts and cumulative risks of coal are almost never fully realized, coal plants disperse mercury and lead thru the atmosphere and into the oceans where they concentrate in the food chain ladders until we finally eat them as sea food.

Acid rain, mountain top and stream destruction, black lung, mining accidents, CO2 emissions, it goes on and on.

But to consider that coal mining actually distributes more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the nuclear industry does, and I don't doubt it, that just takes the cake.

Coal has to be burned in huge volumes to power our electrical needs. ordinary soils and rock contain low levels of radioactive material. But the volumes of material that are displaced to obtain the huge volumes of coal that we burn are enormous. So trace levels of radioactivity in tremendous volumes of earth add up. Even dust from mining would be a considerable radioactive component. Not to mention runoff into streams, coal smoke and underground water contaminated by disrupting so much earth.

I can not imagine how we can even consider using coal as a significant energy platform.

Now if we could only figure out a way to dispose of radioactive waste. Because the primary reason why coal produces more radioactive contamination than the nuclear industry is because the nuclear industry has yet to permanently dispose of ANY of their waste. They basically just store it in dumpsters on site and those dumpsters keep piling up.

Imagine never taking your toxic garbage to the landfill, instead just buying more and more garbage cans and filling them and stacking them in your back yard for 60 years......

it may be something you just have to take into account, and design facilities to handle it. As you stated above, coal plants produce waste too, and in far greater amounts per Megawatt. At least the nuclear stuff is in one place, and while dangerous, easy to handle if you know the proper precautions.

For the garbage analogy you would have to include that you only produce one bag of garbage every 3-4 years, and your backyard is the size of ohio to get the sizes in perspective.

 

[USAMomma]

180,000 flee as Japan's nuclear crisis intensifies
Officials say they believe a hydrogen explosion has occurred at Fukushima Daiichi plant


Japan's nuclear crisis intensifies; 180,000 flee - World news - Asia-Pacific - msnbc.com

 

[Big Fitz]

coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year[15] in the United States.

I have a REAL problem with this 'fact'. Show me one person where they can directly link cancer, lung disease or heart disease to coal being burnt in a power plant or any industrial complex?

Probably the same amount of people as you can find with the cause of death being "Smoking" on their death certificates. This is not like Chromium 6 poisoning.

There used to be a day when you had to prove direct links to harm. We should be going back to that.

 

[skeptic]

There used to be a day when you had to prove direct links to harm. We should be going back to that.

Maybe we should be going back to that for some purposes, like legal damages liability. But there are lots of things that are true that can't be proven, like gravity. We know it is true but we can't prove what causes it.

In the case of the deaths caused by burning coal I am sure that is statistical proof they relied on to arrive at that stat. And I for one do not doubt it. But the quote only says that the figures stated are estimates.

Do you have to be able to prove estimates accurate?