Slashdot Mirror

Could you provide page numbers for the 0-3 days, 3-7 days, 7 days and beyond? I couldn't find them.

Hmm looks like my calculations were wrong by a factor of 2.

This web page from MIT:

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/

Shows the curve for the Fukoshima reactors. The table shows the decay heat dropping to 0.5% of full power after 3 days (not the 0.2% I stated above).

I agree that the sensible and prudent thing to do would be to top up the water in the tank (lets face it, you have 3 days to get a firetruck onsite) . In any case the most exhaustive analysis of the AP1000 estimates a large radiative leakage at 1x10^-7 per reactor year. I would happily take those odds. My per year risk of dying through accidents is 1x10-3 years. So I'm 10^-4 less likely to have an AP1000 reactor leak than die through some random accident.

In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable. The increased allowable dosage for Children (who are hugely vulnerable to radiation) is just the last batch of randomized death sentences they are implementing.

Lets start here, because this is the biggest flaw in your post. There are several websites where you can view the actual radiation reported in various areas. Except within a few kilometers of Fukushima Daiichi, the radiation levels fall to biologically insignificant levels.

At this point, the nature of the disaster is that it is hugely expensive, is leaking radioactive, hard-to-clean-up water, and is rather difficult to bring to a "probably wont catch fire or explode anymore" state. But there are no deadly radioactive clouds floating around, there is no substantial increase in the radiation in milk in the US, there is no plutonium floating around in the atmosphere, and as of now the most severely irradiated individuals (some of the workers) have received a dose that is roughly equivalent to what they would normally receive in a year, anyways-- of concern, but unlikely to cause them to keel over and die.

Further, just because we have an actual, real, substantial crisis on our hands, doesnt mean we need to lose all perspective and start comparing it to Chernobyl or (heaven forbid) Hiroshima. Its a problem, yes, and there is a lot of blame to apportion; but losing our heads and falling for all the hyperbole running around is unlikely to make matters any better.

Im not entirely sure what the dosage received by those in the immediate vicinity of the plants was; but as the area of "concern" around the plants was evacuated pretty rapidly (within about 36 hours), I have trouble believing such emphatic statements as "Japanese officials have already caused a few 10,000 cancer deaths beyond what was avoidable"; especially when the MIT Nuclear Science blog seems to indicate that in total, if you were at the plants perimeter, you basically recieved 2-3 whole body CT scans-- this less than 3km away from the plant, when the evacuation zone is 30km. That blog seems to be one of the BEST sources of information, as it plainly presents the facts without any breathless panic or fearmongering; they state that there is some danger, where it comes from, how to protect yourself, and how to get more information-- but it doesnt state "Tens of thousands of you are likely to die of cancer" or "beware floating radioactive clouds".

This is precisely why this information IS harmful, and if it shouldnt be censored because of the tyrannical tendencies of anyone given such a power, that does not mean that anyone should go spreading FUD and misinformation about a crisis while people are trying to deal with it.

In the wake of the recent events in Japan, I've been reviewing serious information on radiation dosage and effects such as that at http://mitnse.com/.

That's gotten me to think further on a rarely-mentioned impact on astronaut health, and that's the "risk" of persistently higher levels of radiation - it seems that in actuality persistently higher radiation exposures (up to 200x normal background levels, for example) actually INCREASE human health (to a point, obviously), and extend lifespan.

(Notice no mention of this in popular media accounts of the effects of radiation...http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/16/health/la-he-japan-quake-radiation-20110316)

I would just find it ironic that if, after so much concern for the health and safety of astronauts in regards to radiation, that we might find that they are healthier and live longer than we poor terrestrials.

You appear to be referring to this article. If so, it's clearly marked as a guest posting which does not reflect the views of the MITNSE authors. And even then most of this posting is just background information on reactor basics - the predictions you're referring to appear to have been removed prior to the publication of this modified version of this article on the MITNSE site.

"I've never seen a pro-nuclear activist claim any of these things."

Aside from the obvious Slashdot postings... the article here:
http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/modified-version-of-original-post/
Originally stated, in unequivocal terms, that "there will *not* be any significant release of radiation" (that's pretty close to an exact quote). It was widely circulated, widely quoted, and even posted on Slashdot (a few days late, of course). It has since been edited to remove such predictions, but you can find originals on the web.

Your statement that you've never seen such cavalier dismissals does more to damage your credibility in my eyes than any anything. You're apparently not paying any attention. If that's the case, why should I believe what you have to say about nuclear power?

I've been watching the coverage of this story on a bunch of different sites for the past few weeks, and
this is the best I've found - the MIT nuclear science and engineering site. Well written factual articles about the situation, almost entirely devoid of speculation and fearmongering, along with background articles on stuff like how toxic Plutonium is, how radiation doses are measured, etc.

Aren't these (MITNSE) the same clowns that went along and and in the early stages reprinted/distributed the viral "there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity"-article by Josef Oehmen, which included highlights such as "the plant is safe now and will stay safe", "I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage," etc?

Should I trust these guys again to provide me with the news, "calm and unbiased?"

It's nice that the Beeb has released this fairly calm and unbiased recap, but less sensationalistic coverage from the start would have been a whole lot nicer.

I've been watching the coverage of this story on a bunch of different sites for the past few weeks, and this is the best I've found - the MIT nuclear science and engineering site. Well written factual articles about the situation, almost entirely devoid of speculation and fearmongering, along with background articles on stuff like how toxic Plutonium is, how radiation doses are measured, etc.

Unfortunately Ivo Vegter is entirely correct: Every mainstream journalist out there should hang their heads in shame in regards to how their profession has covered this incident.

According to http://www.mitnse.com/

To date, radiation detected in milk is on the order of picocuries (10-12 Curie) per liter. This is 5,000 times lower than the FDA’s Derived Intervention Level. A Derived Intervention Level is the point at which the FDA would act to take the food in question out of our food supply.

That doesnt seem like its anything worth being hospitalized over.

I think it's been handled pretty well. Nobody has been killed by DEADLY ATOMS, and the only radiological injuries have been skin burns to two workers who ignored their dosimeter alarms. The release of radionuclides into the air has been minimal, and the amounts found in food and water have dropped back below minimum levels in all but the immediate locality to the reactor complex (and the levels there are only above the 'constant yearly exposure' maximums). Reactor core and storage pool temperatures are again under control, and coolant water containment in all but two reactors is unbreached. In one of those, the leak of irradiated coolant is within the reactor complex.
The 'crack' mentioned in this case is not in the reactor containment itself as the summary and article imply, but in a water storage pool next to the sea, with the crack being between the pool and the sea.

Not that lessons can't be learnt from this: gravity-feed coolant reservoirs would be a good idea, as well as separate backups for the storage pools and cores, but it's far from "getting steadily worse".

IAEA Incident page
MIT NSE hub
WNN

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/

There is no more uranium fission, that was stopped within seconds of the earthquake hitting. The problem is the decay products of the reaction, which are unstable and thus radioactive. The power given off by the reactor at this point is just a percent or so of its original power, and all of that is coming from unstable isotopes splitting on their own. There is no real point to separating the fuel, the byproducts will continue to fission without any neutrons hitting them. Removing them to make them easier to cool is pointless, since by the time they could set something up, they could've set up a real cooling system and solved the problem on site.

I was about to post the same thing. Here's a quote that addresses this situation:

The experiments have shown that without water quenching, corium under conditions similar to those present at Fukushima Dai-ichi will ablate the meters-thick concrete pad at a rate of just millimeters per minute. Gases would build up within the containment at a rate which would require filtered ventilation of the containment in order to prevent rupture.

If, however, water is supplied to quench the corium as it spreads onto the reactor floor, the ablation occurs at 5-7% of the pre-quench rate, and production of gases is suppressed. The rate of ablation continues to undergo fits and starts, as the corium forms a solid crust, and then this crust is broken and re-formed.

MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub

Automated systems shut the reaction down as soon as the earthquake occurred. The fuel rods continue to produce heat even after the reaction has stopped.

Decay Heat

by beowulfcluster

According to this: http://mitnse.com/2011/03/18/what-is-criticality/ [mitnse.com], any reactor is supercritical when it's starting up.

OP was likely thinking prompt critical...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical#Critical_versus_prompt-critical

m

According to this: http://mitnse.com/2011/03/18/what-is-criticality/, any reactor is supercritical when it's starting up.

Fukushima Daiichi was built to withstand a 5.7m tsunami, as required by Japanese regulators. It was hit with a 10m tsunami, though, which is why the generators were knocked offline.

I'm not sure if you think that is an argument for or against nuclear reactors.

Fukushima Daiichi was built to withstand a 5.7m tsunami, as required by Japanese regulators. It was hit with a 10m tsunami, though, which is why the generators were knocked offline.

I disagree. Almost all of what I've read has been alarmist bullshit written by "experts" that couldn't pass a high school physics or chemistry class. The only decent, unbiased coverage I've found is on MIT's web site. MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub

astroturfing does not mean that stories that you disagree with are being published. If you know where to look there is plenty of hard, factual information available.

Actually, they still do, but it's just the highlights and don't do much explanations:

Japans Atomic Industrial Forum has better presentations, aparently from TEPCO data:

World nuclear news has some explanations of the events, as does MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub

Those are the places I turn to when people start talking about normal media coverage. I just saw a CNN report that started out with clips of people saying that there was another explosion and that there was a fire on reactor 4. I went "shit" and checked. Turns out those were old clips from a few days ago when there were explosions and fires.

It looks to me like things are more or less under control. The cores should now be in cold shutdown putting out nominal heat. Barring another accident (explosion, earthquake, tsunami, pump propeller breaking up and tearing a hole through a pipe, etc.) they should have things sorted out in a week or two. Not to say it's not a mess. Food from fukushima might need to be thrown out for a week or two while cesium decays and there will be rolling blackouts until this stabilizes enough for workers to take a look at the other 3 nuclear plants and restart them. but still it won't be anywhere near the disaster the media makes it out to be.

As to the release of these pictures, while information is good and all, after this is all said and done TEPCO will still have to keep these power plants secure, and there are reactors just like these that will have to stay online until new ones are built. I understand Fukishima Daini and others use the same models. Handing high-res pictures of the facility to potential nuclear terrorists sounds like a bad idea, and the people who know what to censor are slightly busy at the moment.

Lets see, Chernobyl was an accident where the entire reactor blew open, and threw nuclear fuel all over the site. The building was also on fire for days, and the Russian government was trying to hide the accident until radiation detectors in Sweden detected a problem. Yeah, it spread a ton of really bad radiation and particles around because of it, and it was the worst nuclear power disaster in history, behind the disasters of intentionally setting off bombs.

In Japan, only the outer containment buildings have blown up, and yes there is some damage to the inner building and reactors inside. The nuclear fuel is still well contained, even in the storage pools, isn't active at the levels the Chernobyl fuel was, and fires at the site have been short lived.

Huge difference. And yes, as of today, a full week after the initial earthquake, and several days after spikes in radiation, very minute readable amounts have made it to the US. This radiation is not harmful in the quantities present, as it has long since dispersed, and doesn't contain any of the particles really dangerous to human health. Those iodide pills people are taking are still doing 0 good, but to present health risks for other reasons to those using them.

Odds are today you will encounter more radiation by simply driving in the smog covered city, or walking by a microwave then you would from the incident in Japan. Radiation is a fact of life, and would be even if we didn't have any technology or industry. There is a difference between radiation and deadly radiation.

And this whole panicked response from ZDRuX sadly proves my point about the echo chamber.

If you want to do some honest research, instead of looking at the worst power disaster and extrapolating, start here:

http://mitnse.com/page/2/ - Scroll to the bottom and read the oldest, then read the newer stories. It's constantly being updated, and has been a great source of non hyped, overreaction based news about the situation.

http://mitnse.com/ is one of the best sources for information.

MOX (Mixed OXide) is also used by TEPCO at Fukushima-3. Mixed, as in Uranium+Plutonium, the latter being much more toxic. http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/mox-fuel-loaded-into-tokyo-electrics-old-fukushima-reactor http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28211 At least the MITNSE http://mitnse.com/ folks have buried the paper from that risk-management twit at MIT with the Pollyanna paper which declared Uranium the only fuel at Fukushima, although that lie will take a while to put paid to.

Yes, MIT, which brought us the widely quoted "why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors" blog post early on. What's that? You can't find "why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors?" Oh, it seems mitnse.com has taken that highly rosy, bright and shiny optimistic tract down.

You mean this post?

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/modified-version-of-original-post/

Still seems to be there. (The original was posted at the blog mortagesatlarge since it was an email to freinds and family - it moved to the MIT blog since the original author found ou it had been publically posted, and asked them to check it for accuracy and if they would be willing to host it)

Probably because the disaster that it dismissed has slowly happened. You can read that original post with a little googling. Pay close attention to the "worst-case-scenario" at the end.

I've read it, the worst case scenario was with respect to the reactors. The problems we are seeing, which was not discussed in the original post (and at the time of the articles writing were not known to be an issue), are with the cooling beds for spent fuel, not the reactors.

The site at http://mitnse.com/ is directly linked from MIT at http://web.mit.edu/nse/newsandmedia/news.html .

Bullshit. If it is malware then the bad guys have also hacked http://www.mit.edu/nse to reference their site. Apparently the MIT nuclear science and engineering dept put up a parallel blog site (mitnse.com) to take the web load.

Your FUD attempt is a bit off, the site is mitnse.com, not the way you spelled it.

This isn't flamebait, it's incredibly accurate. It isn't specific to anti-nuclear groups but people that want to control others via fear. You know "BEWARE OF NUCLEAR FALLOUT IMMINENT!" etc etc.

For real news read here - http://mitnse.com/ - ,where, everything is calming down.

The MIT Department of Nuclear Engineering has a web site, updated regularly, which acts as a hub for information about the nuclear crisis, including helpful background information.

See it at: http://mitnse.com/

I'm sure it was intentional. Meanwhile, the US is being idiotic on this. If you look at non-politically spewed bullshit, you'll see that Things are being managed pretty damn well . Japan has prepared for this far better than the states. Jaczko is just unhappy that Japan is rightfully keeping him the hell away from the situation.

I don't know how much if this is true. I assume there is a modicum of truth in all of these reports, but these guys seem to offer a more rational and less sensationalist explanation.

Do you really want to believe the power company, the ones that have proven to have lied about this case and others in the past? I still remember BP seriously low balling the oil that was being released. I saw reports where Japanese government reps were interviewed where they dodged every direct question. The latest report is 20 people are ill from radiation poisoning. Odds are the numbers are higher since milder radiation poisoning can take days to present symptoms. There's no way to spin this case. It's bad. They may have lost all six reactors as in none may ever produce power again where as Chernobyl still continues to operate. It seems likely four are dead with only 5 and 6 in question and those only because they were shut down at the time of the quake. No one has yet mentioned what's happening to the millions of gallons of sea water being sprayed and dumped on the site. Lately the water is being dumped and sprayed from the outside so much of the water is in no way contained. The chances of the ground water being affected are a 100%. The site is also likely to be so badly contaminated that the whole plant will have to be abandoned as a power site no matter the condition of the final two reactors. There's no way to sugar coat this it's a black day for nuclear power. Chernobyl may have affected a bigger area but the scope of the damage already dwarfs Chernobyl. Chernobyl was mostly the one reactor where as this involves a minimum of 4 and last I heard reactor 5 was looking bad and the spent fuel was heating up. On some levels it's already the worst disaster and it's an ongoing mess. All we can hope is that the contamination isn't as bad as it seems to be and that they can get the upper hand on cooling the storage ponds since the reactors themselves seem to have done what they are going to do. Storing spent rods in virtually open swimming pools on the roofs of the reactors is akin to storing gasoline next to a furnace. So long as nothing leaks everything is fine but is it really worth the risk?

I don't know how much if this is true. I assume there is a modicum of truth in all of these reports, but these guys seem to offer a more rational and less sensationalist explanation.

There is a very clear, well-written article explaining about why we shouldn't be worried about the Fukushima Reactors. I live about 150km from the plant and have grown tired of the fear-mongering I see in most of the media back home. The article can be found here.