Fukushima Finally Reaches Cold Shutdown

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fukushima Finally Reaches Cold Shutdown

Posted by Soulskill on Friday December 16, 2011 @02:52AM from the super-powers-no-longer-for-sale dept.

mvdwege writes "The BBC reports that the reactors at Fukushima have reached cold shutdown, meaning they no longer need active cooling to stay at safe temperatures. Plans can now be made to start the cleanup of the site. Unfortunately, TEPCO has also admitted not all problems were out in the open until now; an estimated 45 cubic meters of contaminated water have leaked out of cracks in the foundation of a treatment plant."

201 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Have they addressed the meltdown?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 02:57 · Score: 1

The corium is all over the floor under the reactor pressure vessel in Unit 1. It's unknown how much it has melted through. This whole event proves that authorities cannot be trusted during a crisis.
1. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by grommit · 2011-12-16 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No, they haven't addressed the meltdown. TEPCO decided early on that they would completely ignore the meltdown while they worked on getting the bathroom facilities working again.
2. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by radiumsoup · 2011-12-16 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  authorities can't be trusted??? mighty wide brush you're painting with, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative who is wary of anyone who runs for public office, so for me to say that is pretty substantial... what constitutes an "authority" in your mind, and why are they incapable of being trusted in a crisis? Who else would be better in this circumstance, private enterprise? /I can't believe I have to put it this way, but this is one of those times when a centralized government is absolutely needed to fix a problem
3. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Eh? No, as much as I hate to admit it, from an individual perspective, Authorities most definitely cannot be trusted...
  Any true authority will not tell you the truth if they feel it would lead to greater issues for those they represent or have authority over.
  If you're in the part of society that benefits from such deception, then you're probably happy about it. If you're the one who draws the short straw, you may think otherwise.
4. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by khallow · 2011-12-16 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  So what part of that proves that authorities can't be trusted? (Which is a good idea even if you don't have anything to prove so.) Merely having corium "all over the floor" doesn't do that.
5. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by kthreadd · 2011-12-16 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This whole event proves that authorities cannot be trusted during a crisis.
  If there is something that this mess shows is that private entities should not be allowed to control nuclear power plants.
6. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by tmosley · 2011-12-16 04:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Right, because CYA doesn't exist, and people never rise to the level of their incompetence. Government granted monopolies never result in poor quality service. Lack of competition is good, because it allows us as a whole to be more efficient. I don't care what reality says.
7. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by tmosley · 2011-12-16 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  How about the fact that they lied for months (if they aren't still lying) about the severity of the meltdown, and allowed/forced people to live in areas that are irradiated? How about the fact that rather than address radiation making its way into food and water, they merely raised the allowable amount of radiation in food and water?
8. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by tmosley · 2011-12-16 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Right, because the Russians did such a stand up job.
  
  How about we lessen the restrictions on NEW reactors, especially breeder reactors, so we don't get into a situation where we are forced to stick all of our radioactive waste on the damn roof?
9. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't address the question: What constitutes authority? From my perspective an authority is any person with reasonable skills to complete the task and has some say in the direction of matters. I would definitely trust a person to make conscious decisions based on their expertise while it *sounds* like you'd prefer to have an amateur running the show so long as they spill every detail regardless of its validity and confirmed presence.
10. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by Deus.1.01 · 2011-12-16 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  For someone with an individualist perspective you seem a abit trigger happy to generalize.
  
  --
  My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
11. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by khallow · 2011-12-16 04:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  How about the fact that they lied for months (if they aren't still lying) about the severity of the meltdown
  Don't you need evidence for such assertions? I see evidence that both TEPCO and the Japanese government made statements that later turned out to be false, but no evidence of lying, a deliberate falsehood.
  
  and allowed/forced people to live in areas that are irradiated?
  So what? Nobody was required to live anywhere irradiated.
  
  How about the fact that rather than address radiation making its way into food and water, they merely raised the allowable amount of radiation in food and water?
  Sounds like a reasonable solution to a tough disaster situation, especially given that radiation thresholds are intentional set too low anyway. They can change it back to the normal threshold when the disaster goes away.
12. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because the Russians did such a stand up job.
  Well, then, I guess this just means we can't trust anyone* and we should all just live in a constant state of fear and suspicion. I know I was looking forward to dying at 25 due to stress-related issues, alone and afraid, constantly questioning everyone I've ever met!
  *: Obviously, besides a handful of computer nerds on a website engaging in backseat nuclear regulation well after the fact. We all know we can trust them, since they know com-pew-tahrs, meaning they're really smarts.
13. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by nitehawk214 · 2011-12-16 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't address the question: What constitutes authority? From my perspective an authority is any person with reasonable skills to complete the task and has some say in the direction of matters. I would definitely trust a person to make conscious decisions based on their expertise while it *sounds* like you'd prefer to have an amateur running the show so long as they spill every detail regardless of its validity and confirmed presence.
  I am an authority on not trusting authority.
  Don't trust me.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
14. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by radiumsoup · 2011-12-16 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think you misunderstand my position (or, rather, I haven't explained it clearly enough...) I'm not saying that in general the competition generated from an appropriately regulated free market is bad - quite the opposite - I'm addressing the generalization by the post I was replying to that says "authority" can't be trusted in a crisis, whatever that's supposed to mean. "The authority" could be government, owners of the company, contractors slated to do the cleanup, volunteers, or those wild monkeys they let loose to track radiation with - I have no idea what the coward meant. Yeah, people generally are incompetent in anything they have no training in. That's why we call the trained ones "authorities" in their fields.
15. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by MightyYar · 2011-12-16 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Another way to put it is: Trust them or not, they are usually in the best position to deal with an ongoing crisis. Note the weasel word "usually".
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
16. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  And they TOTALLY ignored these.
  Got to compete with the wily Japanese.
17. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by makomk · 2011-12-16 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  To be fair, the British government managed to mess up quite spectacularly too...
18. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by im_thatoneguy · 2011-12-16 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How about the fact that rather than address radiation making its way into food and water, they merely raised the allowable amount of radiation in food and water?
  This might blow your mind... but often policy makers have to juggle multiple and conflicting priorities at the same time.
  In the case of the Japanese Crisis you had a country devastated by an enormous disaster with people freezing in makeshift shelters with inadequate food and water.
  Now you could say "sorry everyone you don't get to eat today." Or you can say "Here is some food that's irradiated above what in a normal situation we would expect but over a short period of time is a better alternative than hunger and malnutrition."
19. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by bzipitidoo · 2011-12-16 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Of course! Power corrupts. America is all about limiting power. We have a long history of distrusting what power does to people. Got to watch them, make sure they do their jobs and do them fairly.
  One of the more troubling things that many people accept is this idea that secrecy is important or necessary for formulating public policy. It's always the opposite. We have better policy when issues are in the open, when there is vigorous opposition, and when it is hard for someone to anonymously slip in a little graft. Security is routinely abused to cover up things the public has a right and an interest in knowing. What dismayed me the most about 9/11 was the realization that the terrorists had handed the forces of corruption a golden opportunity to not just cover themselves, but introduce all kinds of new ways to thieve at whole new levels. The New Economy gave way to the New Military Industrial Security Complex.
  How dare anyone negotiate something like ACTA in secret? How dare oil producers cite "trade secrets" as an acceptable reason for not disclosing what's in fracking fluid? And how dare anyone hold back any information during an ongoing disaster? Well, they dare. They're still trying to protect their own selfish interests even at the cost of lives! There are always some who will behave that way if no one is watching, if there are no restraints. Recently I read that the Fed loaned trillions to banks during the bailout. TARP was small change compared to that. Only now are we finding this out because the Fed tried to keep everyone in the dark. Lately, the SEC has been better at helping financial fraudsters cover their tracks, rather than exposing and stopping them as they are supposed to do. We light up our streets at night to discourage burglary, robbery, and other petty crimes. But we aren't so good at lighting up dealings. It's rather amazing and sad the amount of attention Wikileaks got. It seems a lot of people have a lot to hide.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
20. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by sydneyfong · 2011-12-16 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you need evidence for such assertions? I see evidence that both TEPCO and the Japanese government made statements that later turned out to be false, but no evidence of lying, a deliberate falsehood.
  If you're going by that argument, then we can't accuse any government who bothers to cover their asses. Do the public have access to materials that could point one way or the other? Not to mention that governments should generally be accountable for their misstatements, a simple "whoops" isn't really enough.
  
  --
  Don't quote me on this.
21. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by fnj · 2011-12-16 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Very interesting way to deal with violations of standards - just redefine the standards to make the violation go away. Not buying it.
22. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by mug+funky · 2011-12-16 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  they were n00bs at the time though. Russia had build some impressive nukes by the time Pripyat went foom.
  that said, Windscale was a retarded design.
23. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by khallow · 2011-12-16 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going by that argument, then we can't accuse any government who bothers to cover their asses.
  
  This is an entirely valid point and underlines the main problem with accusations of "lying". You almost never get explicit admissions of lying. Instead, you can only speculate on whether there were motives for the false statement or not.
  
  Not to mention that governments should generally be accountable for their misstatements, a simple "whoops" isn't really enough.
  A good point. So have there been misstatements in the Fukushima accident where a simple "whoops" isn't enough?
24. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by gstrickler · 2011-12-16 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  How about the fact that the raised limits are approximately the same as the limits in the USA. The original limits in Japan were absurdly low.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
25. Re:Have they addressed the meltdown?? by khallow · 2011-12-16 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Very interesting way to deal with violations of standards - just redefine the standards to make the violation go away. Not buying it.
  Works for recreational drug use. Lot of industrial regulation has a de facto adjustment so that relevant businesses can continue to do business. For example, the Deepwater Horizon well prior to its serious accident passed more or less its inspections. After the accident, when federal regulators suddenly had incentive to throw the book at BP and the other contractors associated with the well, it suddenly picked up a couple hundred or so violations.
  
  So yes, loosening of standards is a way used to deal with violations. I'd go as far as to argue that it is valid to consider too. After all a regulation violation is due to some combination of harm caused by the business as well as an overly onerous regulation. If the change in standard yields a lot of benefit for little increase in harm (say, just coming up with a reporting method that doesn't require as much manpower, or increasing the threshold of a toxin, which is already far below measurably harmful levels, so that cheaper tests can be used.
  
  Or in the case of Japan, it could be a country trying to recover from a unusually bad disaster.
Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by qbast · 2011-12-16 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sky did not fall, Japan is not irradiated wasteland, Fallout is still just a game.
1. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by halivar · 2011-12-16 03:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And worst of all, no lazer-breathing super monsters.
2. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AbrasiveCat · 2011-12-16 03:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Those super monsters take time to grow. Just give them time.
3. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by bareman · 2011-12-16 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe we can at least haz cats-with-thumbz?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6CcxJQq1x8
4. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  Get out of here STALKER!
5. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-16 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fallout is still just a game.
  I am debating myself whether that's a good thing or not.
6. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Clearly it's 'terrorism' to point out that for the cost of the cleanup alone, one could have built a whole lot of renewable energy. Nuclear doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense once the lifecycle cost is considered.
7. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by thsths · 2011-12-16 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed, which probably is a good sign for the safety of the light water reactor type. It sounds like there was a core melt down and a criticality event way beyond what engineers even considered as a plausible scenario, but without a moderator it is bound to be self contained. That is very much unlike the event in Chernobyl, which demonstrated an inherently dangerous (as in explosive) reactor design, handled by an incompetent crew.
  But there are certainly lessons to be learned. If we want to use nuclear energy as a low carbon option, I hope we can come up with a better design than what is currently used.
8. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Just a 20Km exclusion zone, 40 year cleanup job and $60 billion to pay in compensation. Result!
  Let's just hope there's no more earthquakes until they have completed the decommissioning.
9. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sky did not fall, Japan is not irradiated wasteland, Fallout is still just a game.
  Tell that to my in-laws and the remaining residents of their once beautiful (My Neighbor Totoro-esque) farming town. It's 35km from the plant, all the people under 50 years old have moved away to prevent long-term health risks. The only government assistance they have received is a geiger counter reading of their homes to tell them which corners to avoid extended exposure to for their own safety even though they are 5km within the evacuation zone. They can't sell any of their produce, they don't have any job opportunities, can't afford to relocate, so all they can do is live off their own irradiated land at their own risk while mother nature reclaims the surrounding centuries-old homes, temples, and cemeteries around them.
  Radiation Map They live in the Eastern part of Kawamata where the orange, yellow and green meet up.
10. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  What is the "lifecycle cost" to which you allude here?
  Do you factor the cost of cleaning up after a tsunami into the "lifecycle cost" for your renewable energy project?
11. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder, is it ghoulification process ,or i jusrt need a bath?
  Either way, where do i order my box of plasma grenades and or gauss rifle?
12. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by khallow · 2011-12-16 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  That cleanup cost is spread out over a lot of energy, namely, the production of nuclear power worldwide over a couple decade period.
13. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by ackthpt · 2011-12-16 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Sky did not fall, Japan is not irradiated wasteland, Fallout is still just a game.
  Yeah. Oh, and mind the sushi, it's got three eyes.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
14. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by tp1024 · 2011-12-16 03:50 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In fact, most of the evacuation area (the southern and eastern part) is barely contaminated, it should have long been opened up again. On the other hand, there is an area to the northeast of the plant, outside of the evacuation area, that is contaminated by fallout and should have been declared an evacuation zone. On the whole, a realistic evaluation would yield a much smaller area than the 940 km^2.
  
  Of course, such subtleties escape the so-called environmentalists. (As does the fact that paving an area of 940km^2 with photovoltaics would yield no more energy than a 3.5GW power plant (ignoring all energy-storage issues) and turn it into something with a striking resemblance to Coruscant.)
15. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by ackthpt · 2011-12-16 03:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And worst of all, no lazer-breathing super monsters.
  About 20 years ago I was in Baltimore, MD, for a family member's memorial service. A walk-through photo exhibit of immediate and after effects of Chernobyl were on display - radiation illness, mutated offspring - human and animal. Nothing can remove that scar from my mine. I try to laugh about things like this, but it's really very difficult. I hope this is the last ever nuclear emergency in the world, but I doubt it will be.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
16. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by tom17 · 2011-12-16 03:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Sure, the current class of low efficiency(~5%), high pressure (~150ATM), radioactive steam-bomb, light water reactors don't seem to be making economic sense, especially when spent-fuel disposal and the locked-in fuel-supply-chain are taken into consideration.
  But when you look at technologies like LFTR, then all those problems magically vanish. Sure, there are hurdles such as Thorium mining infrastucture (Which brings its own benefits such as rare-earth elements that we are relying on other countries for) and high temperature (but low pressure) vessels to name but two, but that is what research is for. This needs to get recognised and get funded. It's cleaner (minimal waste), safer (lower pressure, passive cooling systems), efficient (most of the fuel is burned, steam turbines are more efficient) tech!
17. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Moheeheeko · 2011-12-16 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  You leave Blinky out of this!
  http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Blinky
18. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by khallow · 2011-12-16 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to my in-laws and the remaining residents of their once beautiful (My Neighbor Totoro-esque) farming town.
  How about you become part of the solution and you tell them that? Also, sounds like they were harmed due to the Fukushima accident. That means TEPCO is on the hook for damages. Document the harm and get a good lawyer.
19. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Talderas · 2011-12-16 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on if you're a vault dweller.
  So many experiments. So it's a good thing that Fallout is still just a game if you're going to be a vault dweller.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
20. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  -1 Buzzkill
21. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  In the sixty-five years since this type of reactor was patented, we've made a "few" advances in technology. Seriously though, go check out information on LFTR (Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor), and wonder quietly to yourself when someone, ANYONE, will put the money into making it happen.
  
  All it takes is one to get the ball rolling. We can build things as amazing as the LHC, I don't want to hear about how hard this would be!
  
  http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
  Watch the first five minutes!
22. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by muon-catalyzed · 2011-12-16 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong. High radioactivity is spread all over Japan now. The soil is radioactive. Watch this children's playground just outside of Tokyo, nowhere near Fuckupshima. The geiger counter shows 6.4 micro sieverts while the normal background level is in 0.1-0.3 range. You might say that is not a big problem, as it is in the ground only, but the dust particles get spread as the children play, once they breathe them in, they have a problem.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOIDFh3wPXY
23. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by cusco · 2011-12-16 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Why are lawyers ever offered as a solution to anything? So they start a lawsuit, and five or ten years of continual exposure later if TEPCO hasn't declared bankruptcy they might get enough money to move elsewhere, if they're willing to abandon their homes, their ancestors' graves, and everything they have worked for their entire lives for. I have never in my half-century of life seen a lawyer create a timely solution to anything, and have frequently seen them stall needed reactions to emergency situations for utterly trivial or spurious reasons. In most situations by the time the legal process winds down any offered "solution" is irrelevant.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
24. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by khallow · 2011-12-16 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why are lawyers ever offered as a solution to anything?
  
  Because we have a complex legal dispute. A lawyer has the specialized knowledge and the time to navigate whatever legal obstacles there are.
  
  So they start a lawsuit, and five or ten years of continual exposure later if TEPCO hasn't declared bankruptcy they might get enough money to move elsewhere, if they're willing to abandon their homes, their ancestors' graves, and everything they have worked for their entire lives for.
  Well, yes, they could always just suck it up without any sort of compensation for their trouble. I wonder why I didn't think of that first?
25. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  This is a great point about the seriousness of nuclear power. But we must appreciate that it doesn't stop there. Other sources of major baseload generation suffer similar fates (dams breaking, fires, etc., not to mention chemical and other industrial accidents) and have similarly gruesome aftermaths. Maybe the pictures aren't worthy of a photo exhibit (thousands of drawning victims... seems repetitve and less informative than, say, something like nuclear aftermath).
  Bottom line is, we need power and it's all dangerous. We need better controls across the board. Let's not let the nuclear boogeyman put all the focus on nuclear, because that won't make everything else any safer.
26. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Stop with your thorium propaganda. You can make the same type of reactor with uranium. FFS, thorium is bred in the reactor to uranium-233 to make power.
27. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by tp1024 · 2011-12-16 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Which is the spot with the highest value they could find in the whole area. Had they moved the counter just 20cm above the ground at this place, the value would be much lower. That's exactly what television crews do all the time. It is in no way representative of what you receive in real live. Your hand would receive 6.4 micro sieverts per hour, if you put it there. If you put your head at this place with your right ear on the ground, your right ear would receive 6.4 micro sievert and your left ear perhaps 2 or 3. That's because radiation rapidly falls off with distance.
  
  I have no idea what the actual value is, as such propaganda videos never show the values at a distance to the spot. Had this been about an actual representation of the radiation level you receive by being in the area, then they would have shown values in other places as well, and at about 1m above the ground. Because most of the time we're not lying on the ground motionless for 12 or more hours a day after having carefully picked out the one spot with the highest radiation.
28. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by ColdWetDog · 2011-12-16 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  But when you look at technologies like LFTR, then all those problems magically vanish.
  Because no one has built a commercial Thorium reactor so everything about them is magic and fairy dust. Yes, it's nice that a couple of small ones were were built in the 1960's, that doesn't imply that it's a viable technology.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
29. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. High radioactivity is spread all over Japan now. The soil is radioactive. Watch this children's playground just outside of Tokyo, nowhere near Fuckupshima. The geiger counter shows 6.4 micro sieverts while the normal background level is in 0.1-0.3 range. You might say that is not a big problem, as it is in the ground only, but the dust particles get spread as the children play, once they breathe them in, they have a problem.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOIDFh3wPXY [youtube.com]
  "6.4 micro sieverts an _________". That's what's missing.
  Assuming you mean an hour, I see "normal" background radiation for the US being 2.95 millisieverts/year, which is .34 uSvh. A high "normal" background radiation is 1.48 uSvh.
  Which would put those readings unusually high. But I can't find "normal" background radiation for that area.
30. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by khallow · 2011-12-16 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  A walk-through photo exhibit of immediate and after effects of Chernobyl were on display - radiation illness, mutated offspring - human and animal. Nothing can remove that scar from my mine.
  You do realize that a similarly horrific exhibit could be made even in the absence of Chernobyl? Birth defects and the like happen. We even see to a limited extent radiation illness (as sunburn).
31. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by LordLimecat · 2011-12-16 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Nothing can remove that scar from my mine. I try to laugh about things like this, but it's really very difficult. I hope this is the last ever nuclear emergency in the world, but I doubt it will be.
  I dont think anyone wants to belittle how terrible cancer or radiation poisoning are, but when you take a dose of perspective and remember that the earthquake+tsunami (one of the most powerful events in recorded history as quakes go) killed some 16,000 people, injured another 6,000, and a further 4,000 are still unaccounted for, the Fukushima event becomes a mere blip. A plant was destroyed (as were another 125,000 buildings), the background radiation increased a bit, and some people may have gotten "slightly worrying" doses of radiation that will likely have no long term effects.
  The big travesty about the whole thing was that the immediate international response by the media seemed more focused on "OHNOES WHAT ABOUT US? RADIATION IS COMING" and "hah, see, nuclear IS bad" rather than on focusing on the scale of the devastation caused by the tsunami and the relief efforts. I think I saw a few videos of the wave, and heard one or two stories on the recovery (almost ALL linked in some way with the Fukushima issue), compared with the months of debate on NPR about how we shouldnt have nuclear in our country (conservative media was not innocent in all of this either).
  Its enough to make anyone feel bitter and cynical about our media.
32. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  That some idiot is so short sighted as to make this comment is bad enough. Gosh, not everyone's dead of acute radiation poisoning, so everything is CLEARLY A-OK. That there were enough idiots with mod points to mark this as "insightful" is depressing.
33. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by LordLimecat · 2011-12-16 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  And obviously, all of that renewable energy would have withstood a 9.0 quake and 40-foot tsunami, right?
34. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, everything that only been theorized and is fairy dust and not therefore worth researching. Idiot.
35. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by tom17 · 2011-12-16 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why research money needs to be spent. They didn't get further than a couple of small ones in the 60's due to political reasons, not technical ones.
36. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by tom17 · 2011-12-16 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Uranium-233 is a different isotope to the Uranium-238 (Which is bred to Plutonium-239) used in current reactor technologies. It has a different decay path that is much safer than those of the currently used isotopes.
37. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by assertation · 2011-12-16 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have the right to call anyone shills. Even if you only monitored the mainstream news casually you would have heard that not all information was released and not all information given was truthful.
  I wonder what the cancer rates will be like years from now.
  However, but then nukeish fanboys like you will be long gone while other people suffer.
38. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-16 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  It isn't so much the amount of radiation people in Japan are worried about, it is the effect on the surrounding area and those living there, and the fact that it was a wake-up call regarding nuclear safety in earthquakes.
  Fukushima and the majority of reactors in Japan are only designed to withstand magnitude 7.5 quakes. Fortunately most of them seem to be okay, although tests are still being run. The thing is that the epicentre of the quake was out at sea so by the time it reached land it was considerably less than the full magnitude 9, and the scale is logarithmic. Magnitude 9 quakes average around 1 every 10 years, and Japan gets more than its fair share.
  There is doubt that existing reactors would be safe if the epicentre was nearer to them, and doubt that the people running them will spend enough money preparing them. Japan spends a lot of money on earthquake protection and it mostly works - only a handful of old buildings collapsed and some of the tallest buildings in the world like the Tokyo Sky Tree (which isn't even finished) were undamaged, and Japan has a network of sensors to detect tsunami. Despite all that a lot of people still died and whole towns were washed away, so the pragmatic view is that you can never be 100% safe and to think you can is a potentially fatal mistake.
  The effect on people living near Fukushima has to be considered too. Massive unemployment, quickly built or temporary accommodation, few prospects for the future and much uncertainty. Eventually they will be able to move back to their decontaminated homes, but many don't want to. Their houses are unsaleable, and some lucky ones already have jobs elsewhere. Farming in a much wider area is also affected, with Japanese products arriving in the EU and failing radiation limit checks. Like most (all?) countries the government heavily subsidises the insurance for nuclear power so most of the cost of clean up and helping those people will come from taxation. Clean up of the reactor site is expected to take 40 years and trillions of yen too.
  You can understand why there would be opposition to new nuclear plants now, given even the remote possibility of another accident. Hydro, geothermal, gas, solar thermal and so forth just don't have the capability to cause that much disruption, the worst possible accident being a large explosion and the resulting smoke and ash from the fire.
  I agree that the press coverage was very bad. I was there when it happened and it was incredible to see how people would say one thing and then the media would pick one single bad word from their entire speech to make a headline out of. They seemed to love cropping photos to mislead the viewer too, especially when they could put someone in a hazmat suit holding a dosimeter next to someone in ordinary clothes, preferably holding a baby. I don't think that makes the risks or the economic and social costs any less real though.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
39. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-16 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, most of the evacuation area (the southern and eastern part) is barely contaminated, it should have long been opened up again.
  That simply isn't true. Contamination doesn't spread evenly over an area so you need to check everywhere before allowing people back in. You might be find with the odd spot here or there, but the people who have to live and work there won't be. Since a lot of it is farm land they can't just hope it is fine, especially since Japanese produce has already failed radiation checks in other countries where it was shipped. Soil and food contamination is the worst because it gets the radioactive material inside the body where even small amounts can cause serious problems.
  They have to err on the side of caution do a through check, otherwise there will be no confidence that it is safe to go there or safe to accept produce from the area. If you had a very young child that liked to crawl around and put things in its mouth, as babies and toddlers do, would you be happy with people just walking around with dosimeters saying "yeah, there is barely any contamination, it's fine"?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
40. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, such subtleties escape the so-called environmentalists. (As does the fact that paving an area of 940km^2 with photovoltaics would yield no more energy than a 3.5GW power plant (ignoring all energy-storage issues) and turn it into something with a striking resemblance to Coruscant.)
  A 3.5GW power plant will produce around 28000GWh of energy per year. 1m^2 of photovoltaics with 15% efficiency will have a peak power of 145W and will produce 145kWh of energy per year.
  So for 28000GWh you will need an area of (28*10^12) / (145*10^3) = 193*10^6 or 193km^2.
  If you would built it in the desert you will get up to 3 times the energy per area.
41. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2011-12-16 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hydro, geothermal, gas, solar thermal and so forth just don't have the capability to cause that much disruption, the worst possible accident being a large explosion and the resulting smoke and ash from the fire.
  No, if a dam fails catastrophically, the flood downstream can be extremely destructive. And even while the dam is operational, it can have bad effects on the local environment (eg interfering with wildlife, changing the water table, harming agriculture, causing increased soil salinity, etc.).
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
42. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  You got your calculation wrong with your solar statement, probably by a factor of four. The linked Lieberose park provides 53MWpeak on a 0.5km^2 area. This means 25GWpeak would take 250km^2 or a square 16km each side. (I don't know the capacity factors exactly, but I'd guess 12% of peak for solar and 80% of peak for the nuke plant should come close...)
43. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-16 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  Trying to attribute deaths from dam failure to hydro is like trying to blame your car stereo for the wheels falling off. The two are unrelated.
  Also, hydro is not limited to dams.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
44. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  You don't do your argument any favours by exaggerating. You say "Radiation is spread all over Japan", an assertion which you back up by saying that high levels have been detected in some parts of Tokyo, which according to you is "nowhere near Fukushima". It bloody-well is "near" Fukushima - near enough that in the earthquake, Tokyo shook at 5+ on the Japanese magnitude scale (which maxes out at 7), the biggest experienced in Tokyo since the great Kanto quake. Tokyo consistently measured higher than normal background levels after the Fukushima meltdown precisely because it is, on the relevant scales of distance, "near" to Fukushima. On the other hand if you venture a bit more than twice as far again from the epicentre, say Kyoto, where the quake was only barely noticed by people who were say sitting or lying down, you'll find that the amount of radiation increase, while no doubt scientifically measurable, was an insignificant percentage of background. Such facts are public information, if only available in Japanese language, as radiation monitoring was carried out regularly, in all regions of Japan after the Fukushima disaster.
  I'm no big fan of nuclear power, and the fact that life in Tokyo was able to continue fairly normally, despite a fairly large percentage cut in available power (read totally normally now that the weather's cooler) makes me sad that many Fukushima peoples' lives were ruined essentially just so Tokyo's neon could twinkle at night. But if you're really a compassionate observer of this disaster, you should be hoping that all the nuclear boosters are right and that there will be negligible long term effects from this disaster. That's a completely separate issue from whether we should be building more nuclear power plants or not. We should all be hoping that the radioactive contamination isn't serious enough to cause any measurable increase in childhood leukemia, etc. We'll find out in due time, but in the meantime, I can see no point in running around yelling that the sky has fallen and that Japan is a wasteland, when there is good reason to hope that all but an unlucky few will avoid the worst effects of radioactive fallout.
45. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by thegarbz · 2011-12-16 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hydro, geothermal, gas, solar thermal and so forth just don't have the capability to cause that much disruption
  Funny you should say that. Hydro actually holds the current record by many orders of magnitude for most death, destruction of property, and destruction of environment from any single disaster.
46. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well then.. trying to attribute deaths from the fukushima failure to nuclear is like trying to blame your car stereo for the wheels for falling off. The two are unrelated.
  See how hard that is to swallow? Sorry no.. if the dam exists for hydro power.. the dam failing and killing people is FUCKING RELATED TO HYDRO POWER. There are some other reasons to have dams, and they present the same dangers, without providing the electricity benefits.
  Also... to claim that "gas" doesn't cause these sorts of issues is .. odd. I mean, sure, they cause fewer deaths in failure. But they cause a lot more in operation. So.... I guess dead people are okay, as long as its an operating cost. Dead people as a failure cost, thats TEH EBIL!
47. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  "You can understand why there would be opposition to new nuclear plants now, given even the remote possibility of another accident. Hydro, geothermal, gas, solar thermal and so forth just don't have the capability to cause that much disruption"
  You realise that the largest power generation related accident was a hydroelectric dam failure that wiped entire towns off the map, never to return?
48. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by tp1024 · 2011-12-16 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  See, that's the problem with propaganda those guys put out. The area of the solar cells is 500,000m^2, but the area occupied by the solar power plant is four times as big.
49. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by jbolden · 2011-12-16 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  You are intermixing two things.
  1) The effects of a nuclear meltdown.
  2) The effects of a population overreacting and panicing.
  (2) is creating the problems. There is no reason for people under 50 to have moved away from a place 35km away today.
50. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-16 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  Dam failure has nothing to do with hydro though, does it? You wouldn't blame your car stereo if the wheels fell off. You wouldn't count nuclear bomb victims against nuclear power either I assume.
  Plus hydro does not have to be part of a dam anyway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
51. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Most hydro comes from dams so hydro is related to dams.
  
  You wouldn't blame your car stereo if the wheels fell off.
  Thanks for confirming "reasonning by analogy is fraud"
52. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck are you smoking? The dam IS the hydro power plant.
  Nothing to do... seriously? Are you really that stupid or do you just play one in teh interwebs?
53. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by LordLimecat · 2011-12-17 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't so much the amount of radiation people in Japan are worried about, it is the effect on the surrounding area and those living there, and the fact that it was a wake-up call regarding nuclear safety in earthquakes.
  Fair enough. I have just two questions, then:
  How did natural gas, oil and coal plants fare during the event?
  Is there any reason to believe that one of those plants failing would have no negative effects on the environment?
54. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by LordLimecat · 2011-12-17 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  When the Banqiao dam failed in China in 1975 (due to a typhoon), it killed about 86,000 people on the spot and another 150,000 people to disease.
55. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-17 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  How did natural gas, oil and coal plants fare during the event?
  Some where damaged a little, but nothing too major. Fortunately they don't require the kind of extensive checks that nuclear reactors do before they can be put back into service, and most of them restarted immediately.
  
  Is there any reason to believe that one of those plants failing would have no negative effects on the environment?
  No, but I'm not sure what your point is. Clearly there is a very big difference between an explosion and fire at a gas or coal power station and a partial metltdown and explosion at a nuclear plant. Even in the worst case scenario people living near by could return there after a day or two and the ash could be cleared away, where as the area around Fukushima is still uninhabitable. Ash washes off plants, radioactive isotopes are absorbed and cannot be removed. Humans and animals do not consume ash.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
56. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  Centralia coal mine has been burning for decades. Slightly more than your two days.
57. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by thegarbz · 2011-12-17 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Dam failure has nothing to do with hydro though, does it?
  And now you've just lost all credibility when talking about power generation.
  If you're that set against facts don't call it a dam failure, call it the failure of an 18GW hydro powerstation, ... you know because that's what it was.
  Also yes I did count nuclear bombs in this number. Actually if you take into account nuclear bombs in the nuclear tally of deaths per kwh generated then nuclear still comes out as so far the safest technology.
  Food for thought.
58. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-17 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you're that set against facts don't call it a dam failure, call it the failure of an 18GW hydro powerstation, ... you know because that's what it was.
  The dam was not built specifically for hydro power. The fact that it had hydro built in did not have anything to do with its failure, in other words if hydro had not been there it would have failed anyway.
  Besides which it is pointless getting bogged down in numbers. Yeah, China built some crappy dams, the USSR built some crappy reactors. We are talking about the way forward now and any way you look at it hydro is a lot safer than nuclear.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
59. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-18 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well then.. trying to attribute deaths from the fukushima failure to nuclear is like trying to blame your car stereo for the wheels for falling off. The two are unrelated.
  You retard.
  
  See how hard that is to swallow? Sorry no.. if the dam exists for hydro power.. the dam failing and killing people is FUCKING RELATED TO HYDRO POWER.
  They didn't exist to provide hydro, it was just an added benefit.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
60. Re:Despite eco-terrorists shrill laments ... by Coren22 · 2011-12-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Several other nuclear power plants that were hit by the same tsunami shut down without issue. That is what should be talked about in relation to Fukushima. TEPCO f'd up, not nuclear in Japan.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Finally the truth? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 02:59 · Score: 0

Finally the truth? What else are they keeping from us.
Pet peave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

Or maybe more than just that.

the reactors at Fukushima have reached cold shutdown
Ever since the meltdown, the whole concept of a REACTOR has been bunk. There IS no reactor, and there hasn't been one since the fuel melted through. There is a lot of material undergoing fission, but it is NOT a reactor (or reactors) anymore. Journalism has been on on the downhill for as long as I can remember. Sigh.
1. Re:Pet peave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  There is a lot of material undergoing fission, but it is NOT a reactor (or reactors) anymore. Journalism has been on on the downhill for as long as I can remember. Sigh.
  Fission? I doubt it. It should read "Decay Heat". Just for accuracy.
2. Re:Pet peave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  There are probably still pockets of critical material. Maybe just orders of magnitude less than the amount of energy by the decay heat. :D
  
  And by the way, *peeve
  
  --Your Mom
3. Re:Pet peave by Sockatume · 2011-12-16 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  When there's a car wreck, what's left often isn't what you'd call a "vehicle" any more, but it's still entirely valid and prudent to say things like "the car finally stopped burning" to make it clear what you were referring to.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
4. Re:Pet peave by edxwelch · 2011-12-16 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  to be more accurate, the reactors are still there, however what was once know as "the fuel rods" are now a melted pile of slag on the bottom of the containment structure.
5. Re:Pet peave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  However, they aren't REFERRING to the reactors themselves. They are REFERRING to the melted puddles of fuel below the reactors. GP is correct.
6. Re:Pet peave by Hatta · 2011-12-16 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  What exactly do you think the difference between "fission" and "decay" is?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Pet peave by Rising+Ape · 2011-12-16 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  One involves the splitting of the nucleus into two roughly equally sized (I said *roughly*, pedants), and the other involves the emissions of much smaller particles such as alphas or betas. Fission in a nuclear power sense usually refers to that induced by neutron capture in a chain reaction, though there is a small amount of spontaneous fission for certain isotopes. The energy released by fission is much larger than from a typical decay.
  For the pile of molten crap that the cores now consist of, almost all of the heat production is through decay, not fission.
8. Re:Pet peave by randomencounter · 2011-12-16 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is very well defined. Decay comes in 3 forms: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma (named for the form of radiation given off by each type of decay). Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus into two parts that are (by the nature of the nuclei that *can* undergo fission) much larger than an Alpha particle.
  Even in nuclei that are large enough to undergo fission normally undergo one of these forms of decay unless encouraged to do otherwise (in a reactor the encouragement is typically in the form of a neutron).
  
  --
  Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
9. Re:Pet peave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  (I said *roughly*, pedants),
  But you didn't apply all possible adverbs and adjectives to any word that might receive such a modifier. Fail.
10. Re:Pet peave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  The isotope 8Be is unstable and turns into two helium atoms. So is that fission or alpha emission? Really it's both.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:18 · Score: 1

I don't know... there was thing called an earthquake? Those have been known to make cracks in things.
45 cubic meters of water by janeuner · 2011-12-16 03:18 · Score: 3, Informative

In units of volume, that is 12,000 US Gallons, or 45,000 liters.
Also, about ¾ the volume of a typical 40' shipping container.
1. Re:45 cubic meters of water by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  I think just about a 1/10000 Library of Congress.
2. Re:45 cubic meters of water by hipp5 · 2011-12-16 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Or 1/50th of an olympic swimming pool.
3. Re:45 cubic meters of water by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to be that guy, but perhaps a more every day comparison would be that this is a bit less than what would fill a 24' round 4' deep above ground pool.
4. Re:45 cubic meters of water by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  In units of volume, that is 12,000 US Gallons, or 45,000 liters.
  Also, about ¾ the volume of a typical 40' shipping container.
  Thank you for explaining the SI derived unit of volume in, "units of volume".
5. Re:45 cubic meters of water by janeuner · 2011-12-16 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Realized right after I clicked post that I should have said, "In the layman's units of volume," or something to that effect. Meh.
6. Re:45 cubic meters of water by janeuner · 2011-12-16 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Harder to conceptualize. I assume the presser used cubic meters because 45 of something doesn't sound as bad as 45,000 of something.
  50 one-meter cubes is just as difficult to visualize as 1/50th of a pool. However, most everyone has seen a semi-trailer, and many people actually stood inside one, so it seemed like a good point of reference.
7. Re:45 cubic meters of water by Jeng · 2011-12-16 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I can easily imagine the size of a cargo container. I cannot easily imagine your example.
  More people come in contact with cargo containers on a regular basis than do people creating various size pools.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
8. Re:45 cubic meters of water by marcosdumay · 2011-12-16 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  A 45 square meters area is quite easy to conceptualize. If you make a pool 2 meters deep, that changes into a 22.5 m2 area.
  Way more usefull a measure than 45000 litters (that I'd convert into 45m3 to understand anyway).
  
  --
  Rethinking email
9. Re:45 cubic meters of water by aaarrrgggh · 2011-12-16 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that it leaked, potentially into groundwater, where it will be diluted but still highly toxic.
10. Re:45 cubic meters of water by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that it leaked, potentially into groundwater, where it will be diluted but still highly toxic.
  By definition, the more dilute it becomes the less toxic it becomes.
Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by bit+trollent · 2011-12-16 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

What a relief! I wonder when they'll start moving people back into Fukushima Prefecture. I can't wait to sink my teeth into some Fukushima vegetables and I know you feel the same way.
When do you suppose that 12 mile radius exclusion zone will be lifted? This decade or next?
Now that we've decided that the maximum radiation dosage for a Japanese child is the same as an American nuclear worker, it's only a matter of time before they play in the shadow of Fukushima again!
And let's not forget how much better Tokyo is with 30% less electricity.
1. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by KarolisP · 2011-12-16 03:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  thank you, I guess, for pointing out that earthquakes and tsunamis do indeed suck and destroy stuff. People will just get compensations and move on to somewhere else. There were definately WORSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster) disasters than this and It is worth taking for what it is. Also there are areas that are intentionaly and knowingly made into deserts/toxic lakes or whatever, and it's no disaster at all... so... 12 miles radius is not that big of a chunk to ward off and let smolder in ruins, wouldn't be the biggest or out of proportion dead-zone of the world.
2. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-12-16 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Now that we've decided that the maximum radiation dosage for a Japanese child is the same as an American nuclear worker, it's only a matter of time before they play in the shadow of Fukushima again!
  Last I checked, US nuclear workers had lower safe limits than US children do, so that's not as much problem as you might think.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
3. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by eepok · 2011-12-16 03:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This post is more inciteful than insightful.
  (1) A 12-mile radius is NOTHING compared to all the intentional disaster areas (nuclear *weapon* testing underground, on ground, and over water) or all the major landfills or holes in the ozone. Those are the damages we "accept" as part of our way of life. Fukushima's failure was not a guaranteed result of running the plant, but a RISK that only existed due genuine natural cataclysm that was fought with decades old technology (when much better is available now). Ya, I'd call that a win. By the way, how do you think an oil refinery or a coal mine would have fared in that same situation?
  (2) The maximum *allowed* radiation dose for an American nuclear worker is nothing to sneeze at when compared to a school bus driver, but then again, it's not deadly or else it wouldn't be allowed. People wouldn't work at nuclear power plants if they had good reason to believe that they would develop various cancers as a direct result. It's a heightened risk (one cannot deny that, mathematically), but it's by no means a death sentence nor does it guarantee a lesser quality of life.
  (3) 30% less electricity for any metropolitan area can be spell doom. But it didn't in Japan. For the Japanese, it's an opportunity to innovate. To remodel. To rethink ways. I wouldn't be surprised if more low-power-consumption tech comes out of Japan due to this disaster and the world as a whole benefits.
  Summary: *ALL* non-region-specific (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric) power systems can fail due to cataclysm. Some fail before the stations even get the fuel (oil spills, coal mine collapses). None but nuclear have so many safe guards, even at the 1960s tech level, that can respond to such a major disaster with so little loss of life.
4. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  When do you suppose that 12 mile radius exclusion zone will be lifted? This decade or next?
  While I personally think that two decades is a bit short it is easy to forget what radiation is and what this implies.
  When radioactive materials fall apart into more stable elements they radiate. Elements with a short half-life will radiate more but stabilize faster while elements with a long half-life will radiate less but do so for a very long time. The more stable an element is the less it radiates.
  The most dangerous elements that causes the most radiation will be done within a few days. Those that last several thousand years can not radiate much.
  This means that it would make sense to gradually reduce the 12 mile radius as the radiation decreases since the most significant decrease in radiation probably will be within this and the next decade. (Of course it will continue to decrease but the first 6 miles is 75% of the surface area.)
  
  Now that we've decided that the maximum radiation dosage for a Japanese child is the same as an American nuclear worker
  The truth is that no-one really know where the line is for what is safe or not. The limits are selected by observeing how much radiation a nuclear worker is exposed to and adding a margin. The same goes for how much radiation a regular citizen should be exposed to. For example IAEAs recommendation is 1mSv/Year with this method. Where I live the recommendation is set to 4mSv/Year because a lot of uranium and radon exists naturally here and it is pretty much impossible to get down to 1mSv/Year.
  While it is not entirely incorrect to say that Japanese children is more resistant to radiation than American nuclear worker it would be good to explain why that is, because it is not because of genetic factors.The diet helps a lot when it comes to dealing with radiaton.
  
  People who eat miso regularly may be up to five times more resistant to radiation than those who do not eat miso. That is the conclusion of a team of researchers at Hiroshima University’s atomic bomb radiation research center.
5. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by bit+trollent · 2011-12-16 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1) A 12 mile radius exclusion zone (& larger radius which people will avoid) is huge in a small country like Japan. Do you really think that Japanese people have chosen to have among the highest population density in the world even though they have a bunch of unused land?
  When we consider how common Fukushima's reactor design is, and how reluctant power companies are to invest in new reactors, despite proven safety problems with their design, a disaster like this seems almost inevitable.
  2) American nuclear workers carry dosimeters and are closely monitored. Children operate in a very different environment. Children are more susceptible to problems than adults, since they are still developing. I doubt that a nuclear plant would allow a worker to bring their child with them as they are exposed to radiation.
  3) The loss of so much electricity in the Tokyo area has caused shortages in many components crucial to Japanese and global commerce. There is nothing innovative about turning off the air conditioning in an unplanned 30% loss of power. There is something deeply honorable about it though.
  Summary: Large scale electric generation will always have drawbacks, but it's foolish to ignore their potential for destruction. As far as I know, the only part of Japan that 6 months after the Tsunami is uninhabitable by humans surrounds Fukushima.
  I don't oppose nuclear power, but when the risks are ignored or downplayed (like in your post and in TEPCO's policies) a nuclear disaster is inevitable. And when people notice that you've been downplaying the risks, their unlikely to trust the industry to build new reactors, even though they improve safety.
6. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Lumpy · 2011-12-16 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Bikini Atoll still has warning bouys 100 miles out all the way around it.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  1. The exclusion zone will be mostly lifted shortly (weeks to months). Of course, heavier contamination will remain offlimits due to abundance of caution (people live in the world where "natural" radiation levels are much higher than anywhere except next to melted reactor buildings, yet they are not "excluded" because the radiation levels of 50-300mSv/yr are "natural" (radium, uranium, etc.)). Contamination is mostly in a narrow streak from Fukushima going north west.
  2. Food is monitored. And even if you eat the most contaminated thing you can find illegally, you'll still be fine unless you start eating it for next couple of years. Finally, it is simple (no pun intended!) to measure amount of cesium you have in your body. Simplest is measuring amount of cesium in your pee ;)
  3. Tokyo does NOT have 30% less electricity. Japan is burning massive amounts of oil, gas and coal emitting a lot of CO2 and heavy metals and spending $38-$40 BILLION EXTRA on fuel PER YEAR so there are no shortages. All the fossil fuel plants that were offline because of nuclear are back online polluting. So only 2-3 years of non-nuclear fuel costs japan the same as compensation for their worst nuclear incident in last 65 years. (estimated compensation costs for Fukushima are up to $100-$110 billion).
  Yes, I do realize you wanted to be sarcastic in your statements.
8. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by slb · 2011-12-16 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What a relief! I wonder when they'll start moving people back into Fukushima Prefecture.
  Fukushima prefecture is 14500 km2 and 2M inhabitants less than 8% of the territory and 3.5% of population have been evacuated.
  
  I can't wait to sink my teeth into some Fukushima vegetables and I know you feel the same way
  Most of the japanese would be perfectly OK eating food from Fukushima prefecture without fear-mongering idiots scaring a gullible population with occasional radiations level in food lower than one would find in a simple banana or brazil nut.
  
  When do you suppose that 12 mile radius exclusion zone will be lifted? This decade or next?
  Exclusion will be lifted next year for all areas with less than 20mSv/y of radiations level, that's more 80% of the evacuated area. Also half the radiations are due to Cs-134 with a half-life of 2 years. That mean all zones will be available in less than a decade, including municipalities like Namie or Iitate.
  
  Now that we've decided that the maximum radiation dosage for a Japanese child is the same as an American nuclear worker, it's only a matter of time before they play in the shadow of Fukushima again!
  There's a big difference between what you are allowed to receive every years during your carreer and a maximum environmental exposure that could hypothetically only happen one year. I'm sure the inhabitants of Ramsar who live with a natural radioactivity level of more than 100mSv/y would be laughing a lot at this.
  
  And let's not forget how much better Tokyo is with 30% less electricity.
  Yeah sure I wonder how any other energy production facilities would have fared facing the same earthquake and tsunami. Do you really think the Japanese government will be dumb enough to replace nuclear plants with tenth os thousands of off-shore tsunami-proof windmills ...
  
  --
  http://www.transparency.org
9. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by cusco · 2011-12-16 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  The Indian government never created an exclusion zone around the Bhopal plant, people are still living all the way up next to the fence even though the ground is irrevocably contaminated.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
10. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by cusco · 2011-12-16 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  My wife grew up at 12,600 feet altitude, so most of the protection from UV and cosmic radiation offered to the rest of us by the atmosphere is non-existent. I sometimes wonder why skin cancers are almost unheard of there.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
11. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by NatasRevol · 2011-12-16 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously? Did you ever go visit there? The answers are pretty obvious to those who live at or even near altitude.
  1. It's cold much longer, so they cover up.
  2. When it's warm, sunburn occurs very easily, so they cover up.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
12. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  When we consider how common Fukushima's reactor design is, and how reluctant power companies are to invest in new reactors, despite proven safety problems with their design, a disaster like this seems almost inevitable.
  Yea, and if things don't change in how we handle reactors I expect that there will be more similar incidents in my life time.
  But in this case the reluctance of power companies to invest in new reactors is the smaller part of the problem. The larger problem is that (in the U.S.) the public prohibits the construction of new reactors.
13. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by ColdWetDog · 2011-12-16 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Bikini Atoll still has warning bouys 100 miles out all the way around it.
  What? According to the ubiquitous Wikipedia article you can walk on the islands (just not eat the food).
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-12-16 06:15 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  "I sometimes wonder why skin cancers are almost unheard of there."
  Because the immune system needs vitamin D (from UVB from sunlight) to fight cancer cells. Some people (like Dr. John Cannell) suggest dermatologists have caused ten or more cancers for every melanoma they have prevented. Why is the melanoma rate higher for indoor office workers than outdoor workers? Dr. John Cannell suggests essentially that most dermatologists are guilty of malpractice because they have caused so much cancer and other health issues by scaring people about the sun without at the same time telling them how to be sure to get enough vitamin D. The problem is made worse by the US RDA for vitamin D being much lower than what most adults need (by a factor of 5 to 10).
  http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/tag/uv-light/
  What you could also wonder about is how many cases of autism dermatologists have created as well, with links being shown between autism and keeping pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children out of the sun...
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
15. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-12-16 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Please see my other reply on how vitamin D3 from UV-B from sunlight or supplements is essential for the body to fight cancer.
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
16. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  WTF? Every single one of the issues you described is a Big Deal, but yet you choose to downplay it by talking about how this major problem is better than some other major problem that COULD have happened!
  I guess in your world nothing bad ever happens, because there's always something worse you can imagine that COULD have happened. WWII? Nothing compared to WWIII. The great recession? Nothing compared to the great depression. Slavery? Nothing compared to the holocaust. The holocaust? Nothing compared to WWIII.
17. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by LordLimecat · 2011-12-16 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, US nuclear workers had lower safe limits than US children do, so that's not as much problem as you might think.
  It also highlights how much ignorance (or dishonesty, but I try to be an optimist) and fearmongering there is around this whole topic. It makes most of the discussions on Fukushima a waste of time.
18. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by icebraining · 2011-12-16 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing innovative about turning off the air conditioning in an unplanned 30% loss of power. There is something deeply honorable about it though.
  Somewhat of an overstatement, no? According to weather sites Tokyo summers are cooler than ours and most people here don't even own an AC.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
19. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-16 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  People will just get compensations and move on to somewhere else. There were definately WORSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster) disasters than this
  So your argument is that money will make up for people having their lives wrecked and that other people in third world countries are suffering worse so they shouldn't complain?
  Take my advice and don't run for public office. Or go there and tell that to them, unless you can run pretty fast.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
20. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-16 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  30% less electricity for any metropolitan area can be spell doom. But it didn't in Japan.
  I agree, and in fact I was there at the time and the disruption wasn't that bad. I will make a correction though: Japan used to get 20% of its energy from nuclear, not 30%. At the moment 80% of reactors are offline but most of the restrictions on energy use have been lifted, so a 16% cut was tolerable.
  Japan has enough renewable resources to replace nuclear entirely, but until recently there was not enough investment. Companies favoured technology they could export, but now that is changing.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
21. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  1) A 12 mile radius exclusion zone (& larger radius which people will avoid) is huge in a small country like Japan. Do you really think that Japanese people have chosen to have among the highest population density in the world even though they have a bunch of unused land?
  yes, historically they have - by maintaining much higher hygiene standards than the western countries.
22. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  "it's not deadly or else it wouldn't be allowed"
  *Requires citation
23. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by sjames · 2011-12-16 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Exclusion will be lifted next year for all areas with less than 20mSv/y of radiations level, that's more 80% of the evacuated area.
  Interestingly, were we to apply the same standards, several populated areas in the U.S. would be evacuated in spite of never having a nuclear accident.
24. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by fnj · 2011-12-16 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on where "here" is, eh?
25. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by cusco · 2011-12-16 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I lived there for a year. Puno, Peru, wonderful place. We've spent about three years altogether in Cusco, a couple thousand feet lower. No, they don't cover up any more than people in the US do when it's below 85 degrees. If you're in the sun it's actually quite warm, we would wash clothes or peel potatoes on the patio in short shirt sleeves. People walk EVERYWHERE as well, no one has cars, and only the older people (and light-skinned gringos like me) wear hats.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
26. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  3. Tokyo was in power savings mode until September. I live there. The target is 70% of normal power usage. They have monitoring screens everywhere.
27. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by Coren22 · 2011-12-20 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  The tsunami destroyed much more land, but the exclusion zone, which was preemptively evacuated, just in case the reactor blew up is what you focus on? The radiation in that area, if there even is any, won't have an effect on people living there, only farming.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
28. Re:Fukushima Residents and Farmers Disagree by MrKaos · 2011-12-21 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  The larger problem is that (in the U.S.) the public prohibits the construction of new reactors.
  That's not a problem, that's a solution.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
This is absurd by zeigerpuppy · 2011-12-16 03:21 · Score: 5, Informative

...an abuse of the definition of shutdown. Reality check: - 3 melt-throughs - melted cores outside pressure chambers - compromised secondary containments - nuclear fuel and fission products escaping into water and air - corium so radioactive it cannot be approached even by robots - precarious leaning of number 4 spent fuel pool - widespread plutonium, caesium etc. beyond evacuation zone - significant contamination in food - yet to come: increased malignancies and birth defects Does this sound contained to you? Seriously...
1. Re:This is absurd by BMOC · 2011-12-16 03:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Containment has almost nothing to do with cold shutdown.
  Cold shutdown is defined as a fissionable material no longer requiring active cooling to remain at a stable temperature. This indicates that whatever fission may still be occurring in the nuclear material (whether it breached containment or not) it is in such small and sporadic amounts as to not be a concern to restart itself and continue melting through containment or into the open air.
  Please back the truck of panic up.
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
2. Re:This is absurd by PNutts · 2011-12-16 04:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I agree. They created a new definition to fit this scenario. They are calling it a "cold shutdown condition".
  http://nukespeak.org/2011/12/08/fukushimas-cold-shutdown-condition/
3. Re:This is absurd by khallow · 2011-12-16 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  So we're not supposed to use the appropriate term because bad things happened?
  
  Does this sound contained to you?
  Yes. I was asked the same thing in early April of last year and my view remains the same. This accident has been contained ever since the beginning of April. Bad consequences can still happen, such as the possibility of increased cases of cancer and birth defects, but the accident isn't generating more future bad consequences now than it was in April.
4. Re:This is absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's not fission, it's decay heat. Fission stopped when they said it did months ago. By now, there's not enough decay heat to melt the fuel anymore. Melting the fuel would be bad because it could create the conditions for further fission, as well as cause the fuel to creep around.
5. Re:This is absurd by fnj · 2011-12-16 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. They created a new definition to fit this scenario. They are calling it a "cold shutdown condition".
  http://nukespeak.org/2011/12/08/fukushimas-cold-shutdown-condition/
  The linked article is a crappy polemic which basically doesn't contribute anything. Cold shutdown is cold shutdown. Not more, and not less. It's a term that means exactly what it says. And it's not a new definition by any means.
6. Re:This is absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 21:04 · Score: 0
  
  If you look at nuclear power plant technical specification requirements, cold shutdown (also known as mode 4 in a BWR) is defined as the reactor is subcritical with temperature below 200F with whatever cooling is required to maintain it there. This also implies that the core/containment in this case is depressurized.
  You still will need active cooling. It will probably take between 16 and 20 hours to boil the water in the containment. It takes 6+ years before you no longer need active cooling in a light water reactor
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:22 · Score: 1

I don't know... there was thing called an earthquake? Those have been known to make cracks in things.
And then a tsunami...

And then multiple hydrogen explosions...

No, yeah, parent was right. The cracks HAD to have been there and missed during inspections...
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:24 · Score: 0

I imagine they would have inspected for cracks after the earthquake that caused them except for the fact that a giant fscking tsunami followed the earthquake and caused all of these problems. After that it was really not a matter of some cracks - it was "crap, keep this thing from becoming an even worse incident"
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by confused+one · 2011-12-16 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not possible the cracks were opened up by the, what was it, 9.0 magnitude earthquake, the 45 foot wall of water that came ashore shortly after that, and all of the 7+ magnitude aftershocks?
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:26 · Score: 0

Um, earthquake?
The cracks were made public. by Kagetsuki · 2011-12-16 03:28 · Score: 1

Or at least the suspicion there may be seepage through cracks in the foundation. It was in the news quite a while ago, I guess they just released some numbers now and that's what the article was referring to? It's not the first "spill" either, one of the pools overflowed and some water was released into the ocean.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by KarolisP · 2011-12-16 03:31 · Score: 1

I don't know man.... was this quake of yours any serious?
Still no tsunami protection for cities by tp1024 · 2011-12-16 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Meanwhile, half a million people are homeless, about twenty thousand are dead. And all everybody cares to talk about is that some nuclear reactors weren't safe enough (through neglect of safety updates during the last three decades) to withstand a tsunami. If you criticize TEPCO for neglecting tsunami protection, why don't you criticize the whole Japanese government for neglecting tsunami protection along all of the coast?
1. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by kenboldt · 2011-12-16 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Agreed. It is staggering how many people can't grasp the magnitude of what the plant was put through.
2. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by Kizeh · 2011-12-16 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  Nova aired an NHK look at some of the survivors / victims that were seen on the various cell phone etc. videos right after the tsunami. Turns out, a fair bit of the people who got caught were unaware because they were doing something where they didn't hear the radio, the sirens, and didn't see the locals run for the hills. It would be time to consider other ways of notifying the population, maybe cell-phone based stuff?
3. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by tp1024 · 2011-12-16 04:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nope.
  
  My point is that it is staggering how many people don't grasp the magnitude of what JAPAN was put through.
  
  It is just as staggering how many people don't care about the non-existence of vital, standard safety measures Fukushima Daiichi. Such as a sufficient number of emergency generators distributed over the site to prevent common cause failure. (Instead of having just 13 for 6 reactors, seven of which standing right next to each other along the sea shore with a safety distance of, oh, 25cm or so between each other.) Or catalytic converters to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations (which took hours in all cases, as predicted in simulations 30 years ago) and filtered containment vents that can filter out 99.99% of the Cs-137 and 99% of elemental I-131. Most of the rest was contained by the containment, as it should.
  
  This needs to change, not just in Japan, but everywhere where safety measures are not up to date.
4. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe because the entire design was incredibly stupid? First.. who puts a nuclear plant right next to a well known tsunami zone? Second... all of it's backup systems where in the basement... under water... During it's construction the local citizens protested it's construction, engineers walked off the project do to safety and design concerns... yet they where all ignored.
  Sorry but there is plenty to criticize.
5. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by randomencounter · 2011-12-16 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  "who puts a nuclear plant right next to a well known tsunami zone?"
  People who live in a well-known tsunami zone already.
  
  --
  Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
6. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by mjr167 · 2011-12-16 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They did the same thing when Katrina hit New Orleans. They knew the sea walls and levees couldn't take that kind of hurricane before Katrina. What did they do after Katrina? Rebuilt to the pre-Katrina standards. There were also people on TV yelling about why was it taking so long to get back into the city, as if 30 feet of water was something you clean up with a wet-dry vac. You will also notice that no one ever talks about what went right. The fact that there is a nuclear power plant in New Orleans that rode out the storm just fine is not news. The other nuclear power plants in Japan that did not fail are not news. And sadly, OMG RADIATION makes a better headline than "small town no longer exists because of tsunami." Fear, destruction, and conspiracy sell.
7. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by fnj · 2011-12-16 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The number of generators was not an issue. They had plenty. They could have had 5,000 generators "distributed over the site", and every one of them would have been trashed by the tsunami. Even if not, they wouldn't have been able to hook them up in time, anyway, with the wiring and control panels trashed by the tsunami.
  The real problem was that all the critical areas and points were not protected against tsunami heights that were entirely predictable and known to be entirely possible.
  Good point about the stunning lack of any measures for dealing with hydrogen gas.
8. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by tp1024 · 2011-12-16 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Have a look at this picture, the tsunami didn't reach beyond the reactors on the left side of the picture, there is no damage there. And that's exactly where you would put additional emergency generators. Getting power to where it was needed would have been much easier, had generators been on site.
  
  In any case, safety depends on implementing all measures necessary. Sufficient emergency generators are just one of several missing measures.
  
  The tsunami height was not easily predictable. Yes, Tepco was warned in February, that heights could reach 10.5m or so, but the actual height was on the order of 14.5m. The reason that the height wasn't predicted was that geologists were quite sure that the fault line in the area simply could not store that much energy and that at least two wave-fronts merged before hitting land.
  
  Please, bear in mind that it was just about 40 ago that the idea that plate tectonics are the principle cause of earthquakes gained currency among scientists. Knowledge in that area is far from perfect, surprises do happen in such fields.
9. Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  Cell Phones already to have warnings. Although that is for the earthquake system, not sure if there is a special tsunami alert.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_Early_Warning_%28Japan%29#Mobile_phone_networks
  My guess is any Japanese person living near the coast would understand the dangers when they hear an earthquake warning.
  I know I and a lot of my friends are more careful now. Actually have emergency supplies on hand now.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Kagetsuki · 2011-12-16 03:32 · Score: 1

Well, a very large earthquake, being steeped in contaminated water for almost a year, hydrogen explosions, large metal vessels being knocked over... there's a lot of ways those cracks could have formed during and after the incident.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by sandytaru · 2011-12-16 03:34 · Score: 0

The whole point of the design of that reactor was that it was designed to withstand an earthquake of that magnitude. If cracks formed during the earthquake, then the design was faulty from the start.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 03:38 · Score: 0

Aren't they supposed to be inspected for this sort of thing on a regular basis? How the heck did they pass safety inspections with cracks that weren't properly sealed?
The same way they are passed in every country on the planet. Money.
What about the !reactors? by Jedi+Holocron · 2011-12-16 03:47 · Score: 0

Sure, the "reactors" have reached "cold shutdown."
How is this possible, you might ask?
Simple, because the fissile material is _outside_ of the "reactors."
'nuff said.
1. Re:What about the !reactors? by khallow · 2011-12-16 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Simple, because the fissile material is _outside_ of the "reactors."
  It puzzles me how people don't get it. While there are clearly failures in the design such as the complete loss of power to the reactors, the hydrogen explosions, and having to use sea water to cool the reactor, the reactors are designed to handle meltdown when these sorts of circumstances happen and they did.
  
  If I drive a recent car into a brick wall, I don't expect the vehicle to operate after that point. But I do expect that I'll have a good chance of surviving, given that I wore a seatbelt and the other safety devices of the car are maintained correctly. If my house burns down, I don't expect to be able to use it ever again as a house, but I do expect that I'll be alerted to the fire and be able to easily escape the house.
  
  Things often fail catastrophically. One doesn't expect the catastrophe to happen in a nice manner. So in cases where it matters, you can design the device or structure so that it fails in a way that minimizes the damage from the catastrophe. That's what happened here.
otsukaresama desita by islisis · 2011-12-16 03:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

hope some people can finally take a breather, it's only been... 9 months...
only the beggining... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:03 · Score: 0

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by khallow · 2011-12-16 04:13 · Score: 2

No, I disagree. My take is that "withstand an earthquake" merely means that it would shutdown without drama, not that cracks wouldn't form. In fact, I think it wholly unrealistic to expect any sort of design of a large mass of concrete not to have cracks after a huge earthquake like that.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by MachineShedFred · 2011-12-16 04:17 · Score: 2

Don't forget the massive hydrogen explosions that blew the walls off the buildings. I'm sure that overpressure can't cause any significant cracking in concrete either.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Lumpy · 2011-12-16 04:34 · Score: 0

The soil test pylon in berlin that Hitler made would take a 12.0 earthquake without a crack. It's still there and they have no idea how to get rid of it, it's slowly sinking into the ground and will not stop until it hits bedrock.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by confused+one · 2011-12-16 04:35 · Score: 1

That explosion and resulting overpressure did damage the suppression pool at the base of one of the reactors. Reactor 2 if memory serves. This created a containment breach, if there wasn't one already due to melting of the fuel or breakage of coolant lines.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 04:52 · Score: 0

This is the problem with nuclear energy...everyone is so sure we can make it safe. Hubris is the problem.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by khallow · 2011-12-16 04:57 · Score: 1

The soil test pylon in berlin that Hitler made would take a 12.0 earthquake without a crack.
What? I've tried googling a variety of terms and have yet to find anything about this object. Also, how large is it? Is it comparable in size to a nuclear reactor?
Well, "cold shutdown", sort of. by Animats · 2011-12-16 05:05 · Score: 2

They had to redefine "cold shutdown" to get there. Normally, cold shutdown of a reactor means temperature is below boiling and pressure is at 1 atmosphere. It's then possible to take the lid off the reactor and replace fuel rods.
Humans still can't enter the containment, and probably won't be able to do so for decades, if not centuries. So cleanup is going to have to be a robot job. Some kind of machinery is going to have to go in there and take the core apart, transferring each bit into a separate storage container.
Strangely, Japan seems to be behind the US in mobile robots for doing heavy work. They had to send to the US for iRobot units just to look around inside the containment, and for remote-controlled concrete pumping trucks to pour in water.
1. Re:Well, "cold shutdown", sort of. by MightyYar · 2011-12-16 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely, Japan seems to be behind the US in mobile robots for doing heavy work.
  I'm fairly certain this has military roots, with some added help from the massive US university system.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:Well, "cold shutdown", sort of. by fnj · 2011-12-16 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, cold shutdown means exactly what it says, and is a true description, and has not been redefined in any way. Cold shutdown does not inherently imply that damage has not been wreaked which makes the problem continue to be severe for a lengthy period afterward.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by khallow · 2011-12-16 05:07 · Score: 1

This is the problem with nuclear energy...everyone is so sure we can make it safe. Hubris is the problem.
I think it's ignorance myself. Suc as people who can't argue the point on its merits and appeal to a vague notion of "hubris" instead.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 05:16 · Score: 0

Designed for 8.0's, not 9.0's. The magnitude of the earthquake seems to be lost in history, already.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by alnicodon · 2011-12-16 05:28 · Score: 1

I think he refers to the structure described there:

The structure seen above was placed to test the ability of the sandy Berlin soil to support the weight of the triumphal arch. It was a large concrete mass with apparatus to test and measure its movement relative to the ground level
I wasn't aware that destroying it was that out of reach.
Al.
Plutonium by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 05:40 · Score: 0

Can you really take seriously anything these corporations, or GO's have to say on this matter?
In fact, I recently discovered the following dispersion model, which someone had linked to Berkeley’s discussion page. It uses TEPCO emission data to model possible dispersion patterns for Neptunium and Plutonium
http://www.datapoke.org/blog/89/study-modeling-fukushima-npp-p-239-and-np-239-atmospheric-dispersion/
http://datapoke.org/partmom/a=114
If this model is accurate, it is very disturbing. Why haven't we heard about plutonium dispersion from TEPCO or any other governmental organization?
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by khallow · 2011-12-16 05:44 · Score: 1

The soil test pylon in berlin that Hitler made would take a 12.0 earthquake without a crack.
Or it might split in a 6.0 earthquake. Concrete cracking of massive structures is not usually caused by the shaking, but by the shifting of stress on the structure. Even a relatively small quake can apply stresses to this pylon which would split it. For example, if one side of the structure was pushed 5 cm one way and the other pushed 5cm the other, there will be cracking.
Repo Men by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-12-16 06:28 · Score: 1

"Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. " -- J. Frank Parnell
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by mcgrew · 2011-12-16 08:46 · Score: 1

I seem to recall reading that hte quake was twice as severe as the plant was designed to withstand.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 10:05 · Score: 0

I think he refers to the structure described there:

The structure seen above was placed to test the ability of the sandy Berlin soil to support the weight of the triumphal arch. It was a large concrete mass with apparatus to test and measure its movement relative to the ground level
I wasn't aware that destroying it was that out of reach.
Al.
"Because of nearby apartment buildings, it was not possible to demolish it with explosives at the end of World War II, so it remained; since 1995 it has been protected as a historic monument." http://berlin.unlike.net/locations/534-Schwerbelastungskoerper
You think that's bad? by DragonHawk · 2011-12-16 10:14 · Score: 1

Skeptics worry that the readings would be inaccurate if the melted fuel rods punctured their containment vessels and fell to the bottoms of the outer containment tanks. TEPCO has not been able to take direct measurements of the temperatures at the bottoms of the containment vessels, and the site is still too radioactive for the fuel rods' status to be visually confirmed.
("Skeptics cast doubt on Fukushima status, even as Japan declares nuclear reactors 'stable'", Arthur Bright, 16 DEC 2011, The Christian Science Monitor)

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
"cold shutdown condition" by DragonHawk · 2011-12-16 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

BMOC: Containment has almost nothing to do with cold shutdown.
According to TEPCO, it does:

TEPCO: Definition of "Cold Shutdown Condition": ... Release of radioactive materials from PCV is under control and public radiation exposure by additional release is being significantly held down.
(Roadmap towards Restoration from the Accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, 17 Nov 2011, Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Government-TEPCO Integrated Response Office)
TEPCO *is* changing the standard definition of "cold shutdown" somewhat. Now, they have *added* a containment requirement, so they're not really loosening any standards. Of course, normally "cold shutdown" doesn't include a containment requirement because normally the reactor vessel isn't breached.
zeigerpuppy has a point in that "cold shutdown" normally implies a state of normal control. Cold shutdown typically means the reactor is stopped, doesn't need active cooling, and can be safely opened for maintenance. Fuku is still an active disaster site.
I'm not advocating panic (what's the sense in that?), but fair criticism of TEPCO is, I think, well-deserved.

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Shutdown means something different by prefec2 · 2011-12-16 11:02 · Score: 1

Shutdown means that the temperature of the cores is in a safe state. However, they still need cooling through the emergency cooling system which was installed after the disaster. When the cooling system fails, it can become critical again. And as the cooling system is not stable enough to sustain earthquakes or another tsunami, they are far away from a safe. At least that is what the news tell us here.
NRC and House Republicans Covered Up Fukushima by Doc+Ruby · 2011-12-16 11:57 · Score: 1

Executive Summary
In late October 2011, Congressman Markey sent a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting copies of all documents (including voting records, reports, emails, correspondence, memoranda, phone or meeting minutes or other materials) related to the events of Fukushima or the NRC’s response thereto prepared or obtained by any Commissioner or member of any Commissioner’s staff. While most Commissioners marked every single document – ncluding articles that appeared in the public media – to be not for public release – this narrative is an effort to provide a summary of the thousands of pages of materials that were responsive to that request. The review of these materials indicates that:

1. Four NRC Commissioners attempted to delay and otherwise impede the creation of the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima.
2. Four NRC Commissioners conspired, with each other and with senior NRC staff, to delay the release of and alter the NRC Near-Term Task Force report on Fukushima.
3. The other NRC Commissioners attempted to slow down or otherwise impede the adoption of the safety recommendations made by the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima.
4. NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko kept the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed regarding the Japanese emergency, despite claims to the contrary made by these Commissioners.
5. A review of emails and other documents indicates high levels of suspicion and hostility directed at the Chairman.
6. The consideration of the Fukushima safety upgrades is not the only safety-related issue that the other NRC Commissioners have opposed.

--
--
make install -not war
it IS NOT a cold shutdown by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-16 12:11 · Score: 0

A cold shutdown is a known and documented stable safe state, exactly defined in the specification of the reactor.
In the case of Fukushima 1 to 3, there is no shutdown whatsoever, because the state, shape and even the location of the cores are all unknown.
calling this a "shutdown" really is a joke. Not a funny one.
It No Longer Glows In the Dark by glorybe · 2011-12-16 14:49 · Score: 1

So the plant has cooled down a bit but the workers at that plant will be dying off for years to come. They were not paid to glow in the dark and die of cancer.
Can you trust TEPCO? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 03:21 · Score: 0

Considering the source, TEPCO, I'd hold off on the celebration. They've been caught lying several times so far. Hope it's true but lets get a report from a third party.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by Lumpy · 2011-12-17 10:33 · Score: 1

http://www.mapquest.com/?q=52.484,13.3716
That. and yes it's comparable in size. but a giant chunk of concrete that is still sinking to this day.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Cracks in the foundation...? by khallow · 2011-12-18 03:09 · Score: 1

At a glance from Google Maps, the pylon is about 25 meters in diameter while a reactor is around 60 meters and with associated building (plumbing and pumping, I guess) is somewhere well over 100 meters (which at a wild guess is probably the dimensions of the underlying foundation). It also sounds like the pylon is more or less solid concrete while the reactors have substantial voids in them.

And as I noted in my other reply to your original post, it doesn't take that much of an earthquake to crack a reinforced concrete structure, if the earthquake applies that force to the building.

In the case of Fukushima's reactors, the whole area sunk about a meter. The crack probably occurred because part of the foundation sunk a little less than the other side or maybe they didn't uniformly sink at the same time.
Re:Pfft, 12 miles of useless irradiated land? by Coren22 · 2011-12-20 08:39 · Score: 1

Useless? You can't farm there, that is it. In 10 years, it will be below normal background radiation levels, if it isn't already.
Troll some more..

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?