Slashdot Mirror
TEPCO Confirms Partial Meltdown of No.2 and No.3 Reactors
blau writes with an article in NHK World. From the article "The operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says findings show that fuel meltdowns may have occurred at the No.2 and No.3 reactors within days of the March 11th earthquake. But it says both reactors are now stable at relatively low temperatures."
TEPCO is also now blaming the tsunami for most of the damage rather than the earthquake.
Relative to what they'll eventually admit they were.
Seriously, is anybody else getting sick of this constant down-playing the severity of the situation? I understand the idea that you don't immediately run to the worst-case scenario and cry that the sky's falling, but this is ridiculous.
Tepco is shifting blame AGAIN.
The Tsunami knocked out the power, but if it knocked out the valve control systems and pumps, why didn't all three reactors melt down at the same time?
How come they started overheating when their back up batteries ran out of power. With the first reactor's batteries failing earlier due to tsunami damage. Mere coincidence? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents
The reason the reactors overheated and melted down was because power was not restored to the reactors' emergency cooling systems before their batteries ran down. If Tepco didn't try to handle everything internally for the first few days, they would have gotten power hooked up to the cooling systems much sooner. The Japanese Self Defense forces could have flown in some generators if requested and if they didn't have any I'm sure the US Military would have been glad to help out and airlift a few generators to help avoid a nuclear meltdown.
The key is that Tepco didn't request any aid from outside sources till it was too late and was forced to by the Japanese government.
From what I can see it's a case of ineptitude by Tepco employees that made this situation much worse than it should be been.
It is true that thyroid cancer is probably the best choice if you get to select which cancer you get. Survivability is very good. I don't want to discourage you, but I have a couple of friends who lost their thyroid, which may or may not be related to us growing up in on of the fallout hotspots of Chernobyl and getting a healthy dose of rain at exactly the wrong time. They all survived, but having to adjust and readjust your thyroid hormone medication all the time can be pretty shitty. Mood swings, depression, life-long dependency on medication. So, even though a vast majority survives it, the impact on your life is not exactly fun. Regardless of our differences on certain matters, you have my best wishes for getting through that if it should strike you. Regarding coal - there are alternatives. I am not saying to abandon all nuclear power overnight - but a controlled phasing out over 2-3 decades leaves ample room for replacement by natural gas, solar thermal, geo thermal, biomass, smart grid demand control and so on, and so on.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
which may or may not be related to us growing up in on of the fallout hotspots of Chernobyl and getting a healthy dose of rain at exactly the wrong time. They all survived, but having to adjust and readjust your thyroid hormone medication all the time can be pretty shitty. Mood swings, depression, life-long dependency on medication.
I already have those issues and quite possibly for the same reason. Forget the mood swings, the adhd like symptoms or sudden weightloss are much worse. The last one is really vicious, because as you lose weight you end up with too much thyroid hormone, which leads to more weightloss, and on and on.
I agree there are alternatives, but the cost is the issue. Money really does mean the difference between life and death for many. I think 2-3 decades is being very ambitious. If we got rid of coal power on that time scale I would be ecstatic, I think we are stuck with nuclear for a hundred years or more. Solar thermal is great where it can be done. Using northern Africa to power Europe would be a great goal. It is not really an option in a place like Japan though. Not enough land to do that, and not enough light either.
Shipping enough coal or natural gas to replace nuclear power plants is expensive too. Again, that cost could well mean lives.