Slashdot Mirror


Fukushima Radiation Levels High, But Leak Plugged

jmcvetta wrote in with a story about Fukushima radiation levels so high that monitoring devices have been rendered useless. Levels outside the buildings exceed 100 millisieverts in some places. But the good news is that the leak is patched using 1500 liters of sodium silicate.

14 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Helpful radiation chart for those of us who don't have a clue whether 100 millisieverts is a tiny dose or enough to create a Godzilla monster.

    In short, it's definitely into the "You might want to step-up your planned schedule on those cancer screenings" territory.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      100 millisieverts per...? A millisievert is a specific amount. If you are getting 100mS/sec you are probably in serious trouble; 100mS/day, you want to leave. Also WHERE outside the buildings? Just outside the door levels are high; 200 meters away, levels are dropping off by inverse cube law.

    2. Re:Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi,

      I am glad I have Slashdot posters here who can help me determine the risk of radiation leaks from Japan. I take such advice as seriously as I do the sex tips I frequently see posted on Slashdot.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They fixed th most concerning problem. There not calling the reactor fixed, nor are they saying there is no concern.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "the maximum possible damages are basically incalculable"

      which is true for almost anything, look at the gulf spill, depending on who the numbers come from it's tens of billions or hundreds.

      if you see news of a plane crash and shortly afterwards someone insists that plane travel is still "safer than road travel" do you turn around and shout "air travel cheerleaders should have got on their plane" or "how about you go sift through the wreckage for bodies!!!!"

      no?
      of course not!
      because that would be retarded.

      nuclear is safer, not perfectly but it's safer than most of the alternatives.

      You're more likely to die on the road to the airport(unless you live really close) but when a plane crashes it makes world headlines and a lot of people die at once.
      when a car crashes it makes the local news at most unless it's someone famous.
      It doesn't make world headlines but it adds up.

      nuclear is kinda like that, you're far more likely to die from lung cancer from living near a coal plant or die falling off your roof while installing solar panels but that's local news stuff.
      It doesn't make world headlines but it adds up.

      that and scary atoms and radiation.
      a smog cloud or a broken neck aren't mysterious and scary.

    5. Re:Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And THAT is the problem with limited liability in general, people can make decisions that impact billions of other humans, perhaps even killing or maiming thousands, and they get ten million dollar bonuses for "making the tough decisions."

      Your example does not hold water, because I am not a corporation, I do make a living from driving, and I keep my car maintained. The nuclear power industry is, to use your example, a school bus driver who will only pay for fifty year old school buses, does not pay for proper maintenance, and boozes it up while speeding through residential areas. Oh, and I only carry the minimum insurance mandated by law, in fact, I payed to have the law written to my standards, and by law YOU must pay if I kill a bunch of kids with my reckless activity.

      In general, if an activity is so potentially dangerous that no one could possibly insure it for the likely amount of damage it will cause, that activity will never become a business. Unless of course the people standing to profit from said activity are allowed to write the laws governing it themselves. Nuclear power and offshore drilling are unique in that, rather than being required to carry insurance sufficient to cover costs (which would make the business absolutely unprofitable), we, the taxpayers, are on automatically responsible, no court proceedings or bankruptcy necessary.

      Do you understand what that means? The insurance industry, the industry that calculates risk, has calculated the risks of nuclear power and they want nothing to do with it. It is, according to the experts, too risky to insure. Maybe you are okay funding some fat cat CEO by covering the potential risk while letting him take home the profit, but I am not.

      Where did you get the idea that the nuclear power industry pays into a fund? Do you have some kind of citation for that? I'm pretty sure they do not.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Obligatory xkcd radiation chart by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nuclear could be a great power source, if we made the owners responsible for all damages.

      They used to be. And then anti-nuke idiots decided that wasn't enough. So to prevent any improvements in the nuclear industry, they continued their scare mongering so no one would get an MRI until the name was changed. As a result, people were both scared and stupid.

      This had the effect of preventing old reactors from being replaced (like what you see in Japan). It meant new reactors were financially impossible. Insurance companies stopped wanting to cover these plants because of a massive number of fraudulent (fraudulent and unknowing ignorance - see anti-nuclear idiot scare mongering above) claims dating back to Three Mile Island.

      Basically, idiot scare mongering anti-nukers were very successful in making the world a more dangerous AND expensive place. Energy costs went up. The cost of running and maintaining nuclear plants went up. As a result, nuclear subsidies became standard far and damage caps were required.

      So literally, the only benefit of being an anti-nuclear idiot is everything is more dangerous and more expensive than reasonably should be. And that's all in thanks for providing the cheapest, safest energy source known to mankind, which in turn keeps all other energy sources cheaper.

      There isn't an anti-nuke idiot who doesn't have blood on their hands. The really sad thing is, people are ignorantly scared of nuclear power but should really be scared of anti-nuclear idiots.

  2. Units by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    100 millisieverts? Per hour? Per day? Per century? Thanks, Slashdot, for giving us a useless number.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    1. Re:Units by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Per furlong.

  3. Leak to ocean stopped. Leak from reactor, not. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    The leak that was stopped was from a drain pit to the ocean. The reactor itself is still leaking highly radioactive water. They're running out of places to put it.and are frantically building tanks and ponds.

  4. Re:"Leak Plugged" ? Yea right. by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is an estimated 50,000 tons of water still on site that will need to be disposed of one way or the other. About 500 tons are pumped into reactor pressure vessels for cooling every day. Some recent information on this is reported here by NHK: Workers face challenge of water storage

    To put 50,000 tons of water in perspective, a super tanker will carry about 172,000,000 gallons of oil. 50,000 tons of water is ~12,000,000 gallons. One super tanker could carry all the water on site plus and also receive all new water pumped into the reactors for the next 1332 days. No, I don't need the plausibility of this explained to me; this is an attempt to provide some scale to the problem.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  5. The bad news by westlake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Workers are pumping nitrogen into one of the reactors at Japan's damaged nuclear plant in an attempt to prevent an explosion caused by dangerously overheated fuel rods.

    Officials at TEPCO, which operates the Fukushima plant, said a dangerous hydrogen buildup is taking place at its number-one reactor. Japan's NHK television quoted officials saying hydrogen is accumulating inside the reactor's containment vessel - an indication that the reactor's core has been damaged.

    Crisis at Japan Nuclear Plant Shifts to New Blast Risk

    Chemistry 201: Why Is Fukushima So Gassy?

    But there are reasons...that Fukushima is particularly vulnerable.

    One is its recent use of seawater to cool the reactors's fuel rods and cores. In addition to the oxygen in water molecules, cold seawater can hold a great deal of dissolved oxygen gas. But warm water cannot; so as the seawater was heated in the reactor, the dissolved oxygen emerged and gathered in the empty space above the water.

    (Ordinary reactor cooling water has had the oxygen removed from it by plant operators to reduce the possibility of rust.)

    In addition, gamma radiation from the nuclear fuel in the reactor would continuously produce small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen by breaking up water molecules --- and the normal method of recombining these elements into water at such plants in a controlled fashion is no longer available.

    Plants of the Fukushima variety usually have catalytic converters that accomplish that at the point where steam has run through the turbine and is condensed back into water for another trip through the reactor. But that path has been closed since the plant lost power at the moment of the March 11 earthquake.

    Hydrogen can also emerge from the zirconium metal used as fuel cladding. One of the lessons of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 near Harrisburg, Pa., is that when the cladding comes into contact with steam rather than water, it goes through a reaction that is akin to rusting; it picks up oxygen from the water molecule and gives off hydrogen.

    This only happens at high temperatures, but uncertainty reigns at the moment about temperatures in the Fukushima reactor cores. With some cooling channels blocked, they are likely to have hot spots.

    By design, boiling water reactors like these have far more zirconium metal in them than pressurized water reactors do. They boil water directly in the core, covering the fuel assemblies with a water/steam mixture rather than keeping them immersed in water. The water has to be directed to each individual fuel assembly and therefore each sits in its own zirconium box.

    All of that zirconium is available for an oxidation reaction with steam in which the metal absorbs oxygen from water and turns to a powdery rust, releasing hydrogen.

  6. Re: Good, on to the next problem -- reality check by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well it does look like they have finally got this under control, at least for the most part.

    Plugging one leak does not mean the situation is even close to being under control. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said:

    ... no further leakage has been detected from the pit. But there is a possibility that the water, which has lost an outlet, could show up from other areas of the plant.

    The highly radioactive water is believed to have come from the No. 2 reactor core, where fuel rods have partially melted, and ended up in the pit. The pit is connected to the No. 2 reactor turbine building and an underground trench connected to the building, both of which were found to be filled with highly contaminated water.

    Thousands of tons of highly radioactive water had already been found in many places outside the reactor buildings even before the direct leak into the ocean was discovered. Is there anything more substantial than crossed fingers and wishful thinking that makes you think the flow of highly radioactive water will halt now that they've plugged the direct outlet into the ocean?

    In addition:

    According to estimates by TEPCO announced Wednesday, 25 percent of the nuclear fuel rods have been damaged at the No. 3 reactor. The company earlier said that 70 percent of the No. 1 reactor's fuel rods and 30 percent of the No. 2 reactor's fuel rods have been damaged.

    Nishiyama said past hydrogen explosions have likely occurred due to hydrogen accumulation caused by the reaction of melted fuel rods' zirconium with steam from the coolant water. But now there is concern that hydrogen could accumulate in the No. 1 reactor under a different process involving radiation-induced decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen.

    The installation of billion dollar radiation shielding around the reactor buildings has to be delayed until at least September because, of the high level of radioactivity. In other words, they need to wait for the current levels of radioactivity to decay before it is safe enough to install radiation shielding. So, ISTM, the September date is optimistically assuming the ongoing contamination will magically stop. Yet, even if the shielding could be installed tomorrow:

    Some experts were sceptical about the feasibility of the measure as the step would have only limited effects in blocking the release of radioactive substances.

    That is because the bulk of the release of radioactivity is downward in the water, not upward into the air. The shielding story highlights the challenge they are up against. The level of radioactivity around the plants (and in the plants) is so high, it is impeding their efforts to control the amount of radioactivity escaping. For example, work to restore the primary cooling system for reactor #2 has been halted for almost two weeks because of the high levels of radiation in the turbine building. The radiation level, due to highly radioactive water in the building, is over one sievert per hour. So a worker hits their lifetime dose limit less than 15 minutes. Someone who lingers there for an 8 hour shift will die regardless of what treatment they receive. It's been reported that the level of radioactivity in reactor buildings 1, 2, and 3 is too high to measure.

    They are pouring hundreds of tons of uncontaminated water onto (into?) the reactors every day to cool them. Thousands of tons of this water has come out contaminated with radioactivity and has flooded the turbine buildings, tunnels outside the buildings, and the ground. They don't know how the water is getting contaminated or the routes it is taking

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  7. there are no safe levels by citylivin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I get what you are trying to say with this, but honestly when everyone says its safe, yet these kind of "accidents" can still occur it makes you step back and really weigh the positives and negatives.

    For instance, in these plants they are using plutonium mox fuel. That shit has a halflife of 20,000 years. So it wont be completely nonreactive for approximately 250,000 years or 12000 human generations. Sure it shouldn't happen, and there were no doubt many mistakes by this particular company. But even if it is a possibility that this would happen, and it obviously is, should we not reconsider the long term environmental and other effects when we are possibly going to be affecting forward 12000 generations in the future?

    So far in my life time (30 years) there have been 3 major nuclear accidents. Does this not at least warrant a second look? There are plenty of these unsafe plants active in the world, and yes I am aware there are safe reactor designs (CANDU). But when you factor in human greed, nuke plants run by the lowest bidder, should we even be doing it?

    I was VERY pro nuclear power before this complete mess that has happened. Even though we will run out of uranium by 2100, even though fuel stays reactive for tens of thousands of years. But honestly, if the japanese cant even do it right, what hope do we have for any country out there?

    The timescales alone are enough to make one pause. Can you really trust the next 12,000 generations of man to not have any accidents with spent fuel? Is that something that we should be burdening our future generations with for a short term gain today?

    Further reading: 'No safe levels' of radiation in Japan

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy