Japan Suffers its Worst Nuke Plant Accident Ever

Re:The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by dmiller · 1999-09-30 10:00 · Score: 1

Close, but the particles don't have to be charged.

Japanese health and saftey - A total joke by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 10:33 · Score: 1

I live 60 km away from the accident. Luckily, I'm upwind...

There's one thing that the Japanese couldn't give a damn about and that's health and saftey. I'm a metallurgist employed in the most prestigous Japanese research institute and my job for today is to degrease some metal swarf for next week's experiments. I ask for some degreaser, expecting something aqueous and safe. I get a dusty old bottle of acetone. I ask for a fume cupboard. I get a blank look. I ask for any ventilation at all. I might as well have asked how to stop all these earthquakes.

They wear sandals in machine shops. They plasma spray next to 55 gallon drums of inflamable solvents. I've yet to see a face mask or earplugs being used near any of the high volume, high energy processes we use.

Whenever there's a health and saftey inspector dropping by, he'll phone us a week or so ahead, so that we can make sure he doesn't see anything that might embarass us. We ask him which laboratories he'll be inspecting, then move all the lethal shit to the other labs. I won't mention the azide explosion that put two people in hospital, or the insecticide that made my friend ill for two weeks, or what happened to the kidneys of a chemist working in Toyko.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ! I'm leaving as soon as I can, in 8 months time.

And ask for the degreaser, I'm popping home to get the citrus stuff I use on my bike chain. Its safe and its works. There's no chance I can get anyone here to use it.

Re:The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by t-money · 1999-09-30 10:50 · Score: 1

The electrons are mostly from beta decay associated with radioactive by-products of fission. These electrons come away with alot of energy. Compton scattering doesn't transfer too much energy to the electron (think about the mass difference -- photons have none, so it is very hard to exchange momentum and energy with a free electron -- although photons can kick electrons out of atomic orbit with some energy).

Yawn by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 10:59 · Score: 0

If you're going to post officious tripe like this, at least conceal your e-mail address. You embarass other techers with this pathetic conduct. Besides, the answer is obviously twelve.

winnuke! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:54 · Score: 0

HEH This gives a whole new meaning to "Win Nuke".

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by starman97 · 1999-09-30 11:07 · Score: 1

Plastic explosives produce neutrons?
If that's all it took, any dork with access
to explosives could build an H-bomb,
you still need fissile materials to
set off a bomb.

--
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)

Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Jherico · 1999-09-30 05:55 · Score: 1

Water also is a positive feedback loop for a reactor. As the water heats up it expanses and allows more high energy neutrons to escape which causes a slow down in the reaction which generates less heat which cause the water to cool down which moderate more neutrons which speed up the reaction which generates more heat ...... Feedback. That's negative feedback. Postive feedback would be if heated water caused the reaction to grow stronger and would result in a completely runaway reaction. Negative feedback causes a system to stabilize at a given level. Unfortunately, in this case the level is still way too 'hot'. At any rate, water is used as a stabilizer precisely because of this behaviour. Its helpful in keeping a reaction from getting out of hand too easily.

--

Jherico

What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

Geez you guys... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 11:08 · Score: 0

How about a moment of silence for the poor bastards who 'Saw a blue light' I don't know much about radiation, but if you feel sick from exposure, odds are not in your favor.

Methinks were not being told the whole truth... by Listerine · 1999-09-30 05:57 · Score: 1

If I were in charge I wouldn't tell people the whole truth. Nuclear accidents have a tendency to be downplayed for many years after the actual accident (as in China Syndrome). This helps both calm the people and provide a better outlook at your skills as governer or whatever.

If there really was a big problem, telling the whole world they were about to die wouldn't be on your agenda. Just let people live in ignorance is soooooooooo much better than the alternative.

If you don't agree, then I heavily suggest you never vote for me if I decide to run for office.

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:58 · Score: 0

That much firepower on a state-sized island would have wiped out a majority of the country's population.

Ummm ... what makes you say that? It would just be a far larger bomb. A fusion device is just a really big explosive -- it wouldn't kill people it couldn't reach, and after the intial radiation deaths the only aftereffects would be, as with Nagasaki and Hiroshima, a higher death rate from cancer.

It could make a bigger hole, a bigger bang, more radiant energy, but kill everyone? It doesn't do that in any special way.

Re:really sad... by Zenki · 1999-09-30 11:11 · Score: 1

The danger posed by the nuclear meltdown comes in three forms:
Gamma
Beta
Alpha.

Washing is extremely effective against Alpha radiation, which are just large enough that they can't penetrate your skin. In fact, you get alpha radiation poison either by inhaling the stuff or eating it down.

Beta is easily stopped by object, it's just a bunch of flimsy electrons anyways.

Gamma, well, IIRC, uranium based reactors don't create a lot of this stuff, it's them plutonium based reactors that make this stuff in droves...

Let's say if you can see your outline burned in the ground from gamma radiation, you're screwed. :)

Re: water by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:01 · Score: 0

It doesn't supply neutrons, it just slows the fission neutrons down enough to increase their fission cross-section. -a

Re:What?? by AndyL · 1999-09-30 11:13 · Score: 1

Exactly, if this happened next door to me, my first thought would be to get in my car and drive as fast as I could until my gas tank was empty. (Perhaps even steal a faster car.)
In a populated area the effects of this could be worse then the accident itself.

I've always worried about that with reagards to Seabrook Station here in New England. Apperently the evacuation plan involves the people coming from the beach to actualy drive towards the plant for a short stretch to get on roads that could handle the traffic. I honestly beleve that police would have to start shooting at people to inforce this.

Obviously =) by Anonymous+Shepherd · 1999-09-30 11:14 · Score: 2

What, I'm a CS major, not a phys major! It's not as if I can do most of this without a couple weeks of research.

Of course I'm also not afraid to be ignorant(too much)

-AS

--

-AS
*Pikachu*

Re:What?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:01 · Score: 0

To stay indoors avoids two things, it limits the risk to inhale radioactive particles and it helps to avoid a panic.

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 11:25 · Score: 0

Know what people said when the first train got built? That if you went over 35 miles per hour all the air would be ripped from your lungs. Yeah you sound just as silly to me as that statement sounds to anyone. Hey is it true that a solar panel will never produce the ammount of power in it's lifetime that it cost to manufacture? Something I have heard somewhere. Oh these tree huggers kill me. God only knows what will happen if we just slap up loads of windmills too. Just look at what damming rivers has done to the ecology. Life itself is unsafe. Just look at all the people that died from being born. Better hang yourself now and get into the fertilizer business. There's no such thing as chance, just a lack of data.

Cerenkov radiation explanation by adnoid · 1999-09-30 06:02 · Score: 2

Here's a good description of the effect:

http://dept.physic s.upenn.edu/~www/balloon/cerenkov_radiation.html

--
No sig

how about theology? by On+Lawn · 1999-09-30 06:03 · Score: 1

Isaac Asimov's Foundation series had one stage of the Foundation deal directly with this problem. The (dang what was the name of the professor again, Henry Sobol?) answer to having uneducated people deal with the dangers of nuclear reactors was to use theological rules and constructs to instruct them how to use safe nuclear procedure.

The only difference I assume between this and a tolalitarian society is that the nuclear device is preached as the punisher of not wearing the priestly nuclear suit, rather than the government.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~

Re:how about theology? by poink · 1999-09-30 07:16 · Score: 1

(dang what was the name of the professor again, Henry Sobol?)
Hari Seldon, father of pychohistory.

Re:Chernobyl isn't critical. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:09 · Score: 0

Ok, your right.

Here's a neat picture.

http://www.kingroach.com/comics/chernobyl.html

An interesting article by jd · 1999-09-30 06:13 · Score: 1

Aside from the =amazing= technical ignorance (I can just picture the alpha, beta and gamma radiation sneaking out of the building when no-one's looking), this accident is extremely serious, but highlights something else, too. TEN TIMES background, on a good day, in the surrounding area? What's that been doing to the food chain? It doesn't just sit there and pose for the photographers. My sympathies to the workers & the local population, but maybe this will cut into the pervasive complacency over safety.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re: Don't confuse state sizes. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 11:42 · Score: 0

>If Japan had been nuked with two H-bombs (not available in WWII anyway) Japan would still not have recovered. That much firepower on a state-sized island would have wiped out a majority of the country's population.

Japan is a 2,000 km long "State-sized island"; if you count all the islands, more like 3,000 km. (Exercise for the reader; convert that to metric."

Re:No, Nope! Absolutely not! by Admiral+Mouse · 1999-09-30 11:58 · Score: 1

Another point is that there is no standard design for nuke power plants. Every time we build one, its a whole new design. If someone would settle on a design, then we could study it and make it much safer. Then we could learn from our mistakes and next year (decade, whatever) when we build all the new plants, they'll all be "version 1.2, with bugfixes".

The US Navy cites this as one of the reasons they don't have problems with their nukes (at least none that they've told us about). The Navy has a singular basic design that they've refined and exacted, plus they've got a talent base that knows how to operate _all_ their reactors.

Think if all US nuke power plants were the same basic design, then experts from one facility would be instantly usefull in diagnosing problems at another.

Someone should start a "safe nukes" movement...

----

--
Life if possible, art at any cost.

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by quade]CnM[ · 1999-09-30 12:08 · Score: 1

Not entirly true. IIRC, an H-bomb works on the principle of having hydrogen ( mostly hydrogen, with various amounts of deterium and tritium, which are isatobes of hydrogen ) The trick is to speed up these elements fast enough to cause the colisions to fuse the hydrogen to helium(needs to raise the temp of hydrogen to 4x10^7 K). I know that this was done originaly with a Plutonium sphere, somewhat similer to the fat man bomb. It is theoreticaly posible to do this without a fission reaction(the sun is a good example of this), BUT it would take a lot of work. I believe they use plastic explocives to set off a small fission reaction, which in turn produces the fusion reaction. I believe that the first H-Bombs derived about 80-90% of the effect from the fusion, but now it is a LOT higher. As far as the nutrons go, they realy dont matter, the only thing that you need from the fission reaction is the heat it can produce

Re:Cherenkov Radiation by tlhIngan · 1999-09-30 12:10 · Score: 1

I could be mistaken, but I remember reading that this blue light is the result of when a particle in a medium travels faster than light in the same medium.

(before I get flamed: the "speed barrier", c, refers to light in a *vacuum* (which is impossible, btw, thanks to the uncertainty principle). Light travels slower in any medium (but 1 atm air tends to be "vacuumy enough" that it's very close to c).).

I remember on /. a while back about how someone managed to force light to travel at a snail 60mph or so. If in that medium, something was travelling faster than it, you'd witness this radiation. Probably happened because the particle was bombarded with gamma radiation.

Re:draining the water off.. by zantispam · 1999-09-30 06:14 · Score: 1

Well, last I checked, they had a team draining the water. They had also brought in 300lb of (insert subsatce who's name escapes me here) to try to calm things down a bit, but couldn't figure out how to get a person in close enough to use it.

Actually, I just checked CNN again and the reference to the substance was gone. The site did say that the water had been drained off and that RAD levels were way down.

Footage at 11.

--

censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan

Re:This is REALLY BAD! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 12:15 · Score: 0

I *wish* I were in Kamakura, though I'll be moving there in a couple months. As it is, I'm
in Tokyo now, which is about 30 miles closer. And
from what I've seen, this doesn't look like
something that will have any direct affect on
anyone over 20 miles away from ground zero.

Anyway, the readings are almost back to normal,
and I can finally stop worrying about immediate
radioactive contamination, and once again resume
worrying about all the pollution I subject myself
to out here.

Re:Before you get all excited by jabberwocky · 1999-09-30 06:14 · Score: 1

but compared to prior years, 1999 has been pretty tame in terms of 7+ magnitude quakes..
front story.
ch art of quakes in 20th century: requires login. shows only 11 (i guess it would be 12 including today's quake in mexico) in 1999, with the average being just under 20, and 1943 being the most active year with 41 total 7.0+ quakes.

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:17 · Score: 0

First, nuclear power is not cheap! It is actually one of the most expensive power options. For a country to use it, there must be good reason. For example, in Japan they do not have vast oil or coal reserves. Also, may not want to have all the air polution associated with fossil fuels. Wind, solar, and water power is limited in the amount of energy it can produce and where and when it can produce it. They only way we can subsist on perfectly clean power is to live in the most ideal areas and use about 1/100th of the power we are currently using. -a

Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 12:26 · Score: 0

Nonetheless corner-cutting does occur.
Best if you can read the article "Shock waves"
in New Scientist, 25 Sep. 1999, p.48.

To summarize: cost cutting has comprimised
the safety of mainly large public engineering
works against earthquakes.

Why... by Darksky · 1999-09-30 02:08 · Score: 2

... were they using 16 kg of the stuff when they know that can produce a criticality?

--
01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011

Re:Why... by Avus · 1999-09-30 06:20 · Score: 1

Unlikely. The maximum allowed is 2.5 kg (vs 16 kg).

Even litres vs gallons wouldn't suffice.

I wonder if this was software controlled ...
Re:Why... by chazR · 1999-09-30 07:11 · Score: 2

Latest info (at 1212 UT) can be read in this BBC report

They seem to have drained of the water (where to?) which should stop any further nuclear rection.

Unfortunately, it seems as if more people than previously thought have been contaminated, including rescue workers.

The early reports of 'a blue flash' now sound more like a chemical (?hydrogen?) explosion.
Re:Why... by billh · 1999-09-30 02:12 · Score: 2

Isn't it obvious? Someone let Mr. Sparkle into the plant.
Re:Why... by zonker · 1999-09-30 02:15 · Score: 0

hahahaha! what was it, a light bulb and a fish or something that made mr. sparkle? i forget... funny episode though! ;)

--
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Re:Why... by paxmark9b · 1999-10-01 21:00 · Score: 1

Compared to what almost happened near Denver with a near catastrophic aerosol dispersion of Plutonium barely averted in the late 1960's http://www.bullatomsci.org/index.html) this was miniscule.

The reason why is always trying to save money and time because of superiors wanting it so or just trying to push the limit to see what one can do in a day.

Presently, British Nuclear Fuels is getting ready to "recycle" nickel from reactors at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory into the consumer market, going in anywhere from auto parts to dental tools. This is after a huge emission of radioactive cesium into the air over Spain from a metal smelter. This DOE (Dept of Energy) proposal is a test run of a much larger reuse of metals that have been in the presence of neutrons for anywhere from 20 to 40 years. (Sources - NAPF and the Sunflower and gov.us.energy.nuclear)

These things will continue to occur.
Mark R Des Moines
Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:41 · Score: 0

It was probably another metric conversion error, they though they were putting in 16 pounds. B^}

an even better quote from cnn: by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 12:43 · Score: 0

"...raising hope that Japan's worst-ever nuclear disaster was on the verge..."

that's the one that got me.

Re:Cruelty. by mmontour · 1999-09-30 06:18 · Score: 1

I think this would be against the spirit of the awards, since these people caused so much external damage. Darwin Awards are (IMHO) meant for those who produce a net benefit to society by removing themselves in amusing ways without hurting others.

Re:No, Nope! Absolutely not! by Gramie · 1999-09-30 12:46 · Score: 1

There's also a matter of national pride, and the military angle. Almost every major country has its own designs for nuclear reactors. It keeps the bug utilities happy, and they make generous contributions to politicians. Amazing.

Instead of light-water reactors, why doesn't everyone use heavy-water ones, like the CANDU? With that design, if you lose cooling water the reaction stops instead of running out of control. Sounds like a good idea to me. Also (until a spate of recent problems; I'm not sure how it is now) CANDU reactors have held many of the top spots for uptime and performance.

Graham

Re:Before you get all excited by On+Lawn · 1999-09-30 06:18 · Score: 2

/* begin sarcasm */

That reminds me, I heard of a coal mine exploding recently from a buildup of methane gas in Montana.

I also have a feeling some of the more extreme technophiles/ conservatives are going to chastise us for being alarmed by *this* sort of accident. Generally, after a coal mining mishap, the pattern goes like this:

1) BOOOM
2) a number of people are rushed to the hospital
3) liberals run around screaming "Look how awful coal Is!"
4) conservatives tilt their Laz-e-boys up a notch, puff on their pipes, and make devastating comments about "Luddites"

Wait, 3 and 4 don't happen. I'm sorry. I guess hundreds of coal workers dieing every year just isn't as news worthy as 19 Japanese people with radiation burns. Millions of Tobacco smokers dying horrible deaths is maybe as news worthy, but just barely.

Well then, at least watching the tape of the Space Shuttle Challenger and its seven deaths was enough to convince me never to go up into space. Never mind that that is less than the average number of high school kids that die in drunk driving accidents over a four year period of a high school. Lets have a party!

/* end of sarcasm */
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~

Cerenkov radiation explained by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 12:46 · Score: 0

When high energy electrons enter a medium such as water or glass where the speed of the electron is faster than the speed of light in that medium light is emitted. These electrons have momentum so when they are slowed by entering the new medium the kinetic energy is lost as photons. This is not due to ionizing radiation in your eyeballs. It also does not mean that you are being exposed to high levels of radiation. Light travels easily through water neutrons do not. Also the high energy electrons that cause this glow can't even penetrate the outer layer of your skin. It also appalls me how poor the training and safety precautions are at that facility. I worked with micro Curie ammounts of Tritium in a biochem lab and the security, training and safety precautions were very strict. Every last micro liter of the solution contining the radioactive compound had to be accounted for. Tests for contamination throughout the lab room had to be conducted before and after handling the samples. My point is that if they even followed the protocols for the handling of tritium compounds this kind of accident would have been highly improbable.

Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:10 · Score: 0

It seems that an amazing amount of ignorence was displayed by the people involved. Since it was a reprocessing plant rather than a reactor, there doesn't seem to be a lot of relevance to the debate over nuclear plants. (And who cares if you're first post or not?) - Lawrence Person

Re:Hmmm by phil+reed · 1999-09-30 19:14 · Score: 1

CNN slashdotted, msnbc slashdotted (not by /. gang, but can you find a better name)
It's called a 'flash crowd'. See the Larry Niven teleportation stories.

...phil

--

...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Re:Hmmm by Justin+Motion · 1999-09-30 05:22 · Score: 1

The plant where they process the fuel for a nuculear ractor has little to do with the debate over nuculear power? Just how many twists of logic did you have to apply to arrive at that conclusion? It might not be a nuculear power plant, but they're still dealing with high concentrations of unstable atoms. And when they overdumped into the tank, they likely STARTED a nuculear reaction in the tank. A slow one, but relitivly uncontained.
Re:Hmmm by My_Favorite_Anonymou · 1999-09-30 05:31 · Score: 1

CNN slashdotted, msnbc slashdotted (not by /. gang, but can you find a better name) Only foxnews.com is work. CNN cable is talking about moneyline...I can't afford foxnews cable and msnbc channel 43 finally has a "u.s. team going to japan " flash.

Arrrkk! Infomation starvation, if the news server can't feed news in a break out accident, then what good is internet.

cy

Checked out the weater... by zantispam · 1999-09-30 06:21 · Score: 1

here at Yahoo. Looks like an easterly wind with some clouds moving in. God, I don't know whether rain would be good or not...

(since SLASH isn't displaying the link properly, here it is... http://weather.yahoo.com/graphics/satellite/East_A sia_loop.html)

--

censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan

Re:Official reaction not surprising by Chilli · 1999-09-30 12:47 · Score: 1

The reaction from the officials (and the Japanese news outlets) is not surprising; the goverment of any country would downplay the incident. The really bad thing in Japan is that ignoring a problem is the number one approach to problem solving for many (most?) people. And it works great with radiation! You don't see, you don't hear, you don't smell it; it's only in your head anyway - and if you die 20 years later from cancer, you can always blame your smoking co-workers.

Chilli - less than 100km away from that shit

PS: It is also no contradiction here to have a kindergarten next to a dioxin emitting waste plant - on the contrary, the kids playing in the contaminated area give everything a much lighter athmosphere (and they probably got a much higher dose while there were being breast fed anyway)

PSS: Why do you think, I am cynic?

--
-=- Just a random lambda hacker

"Abnormal reactions"? by Ledge+Kindred · 1999-09-30 02:10 · Score: 2

Is that politico-speak for "China Syndrome"?

Not good. Especially with Japan being such a densely populated country.

-=-=-=-=-

--

-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!

Re:"Abnormal reactions"? by Audin · 1999-09-30 08:44 · Score: 1

First rule of thumb when working with fissionable materials: If you start seeing a blue glow, and there isn't at least 20 feet of water between you and that glow, slowly stop what you're doing, and run away. Get in your car, roll the windows up, and drive as fast as your car will go until you run out of gas.
Not quite. By the time you see cherinkov radiation you've already had it. You might as well stick around and try to shut the reaction down to save other people.
The following is from J. Robert Oppenheimer, Shatterer of Worlds, by Peter Goodchild.
On 21 August, Harry Daghlian, a young scientist working under Frisch, was assembling small bricks of uranium as a reflector around two very nearly critical hemispheres of plutonium. Each brick weighed about 12 lbs and as the last one was being put into place it slipped and fell into the center of the pile. Immediately the assembly went critical and a blue ionisation glow burst across the room, as Daghlian desperately tried to knock the brick off. In that instant he had received a lethal dose of radiation. He rapidly developed second degree burns on hands and chest, a fever developed, and after two weeks the burns blistered and he lost his hair. He died twenty-eight days after the accident.
Re:"Abnormal reactions"? by Arnaud · 1999-09-30 22:10 · Score: 1

Not quite. By the time you see cherinkov radiation you've already had it. You might as well stick around and try to shut the reaction down to save other people.

Not quite. I have seen Chenrenkov radiation and am alive and well. There was about 3 meters of water between me and the reaction. The reaction took place in a (low power) research reactor in an open vat of water. You could look from above down into the reactor and see the Cherenkov radiation. The radiation levels where I was standing were normal.
Re:"Abnormal reactions"? by Audin · 1999-10-01 06:24 · Score: 1

Not quite. I have seen Chenrenkov radiation and am alive and well. There was about 3 meters of water between me and the reaction.
Arrgh... I knew I shouldn't have left out that line... Yes, one can safely view chenrenkov (does anyone have a proper spelling for this name?) radiation through a couple of meters of water. (I've seen it and lived to talk about it...it's quite neat, actually).
However, if you see it in your immediate vicinity without the water, you've basically had it.
I had hoped my quote would provide enough context to make this clear...
Re:"Abnormal reactions"? by fart_face · 1999-09-30 05:32 · Score: 1

Speaking of abnormal reactions, on the radio this morning, as I listened to a description of the event, apparently they noticed something had gone wrong when the thingummy they were mixing the stuff in started emitting a blue glow.
First rule of thumb when working with fissionable materials: If you start seeing a blue glow, and there isn't at least 20 feet of water between you and that glow, slowly stop what you're doing, and run away. Get in your car, roll the windows up, and drive as fast as your car will go until you run out of gas.
On a side note, I have heard that there are road signs in Siberia that have those very words on them. Something to the effect of "Roll your windows up, turn your air conditioner off, and drive as fast as your car will go for the next 75 miles ( or kilometers )"....

Re:Anyone willing to do a criticality calculation? by Nit+Picker · 1999-09-30 06:22 · Score: 1

Isn't 18.8% an awfully high enrichment for most reactors other than research reactors?

Re:Physics of radiation by El+Puerco+Loco · 1999-09-30 06:26 · Score: 1

Neutrons aren't worse because they are heavier, they are worse because they have no charge. Alpha and Beta particles are stopped easily because other charged particles act to repel or attract them, depleting their energy. Neutrons can go right on through without much interaction. Also, neutrons are absorbed by normally stable atoms making them radioactive.
^. .^
( @ )
^. .^

More coverage and stuff by BOredAtWork · 1999-09-30 02:11 · Score: 2

CNN is now saying that the reaction may still be going on. Citizens are told to stay indoors, and this thing may reach critical mass (imminent self-sustaining meltdown) within hours.

I'm no expert by any means, but I'm guessing that Japan's geographic isolation is a Real Good Thing right about now...

--

--
Just lurking, thanks!

Don't knock the Luddites by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:26 · Score: 2

Much maligned people the Luddites. Firstly, they fought bravely for their right to work against ruthless employers who were using new technology to throw workers on the scrap heap. Secondly, the Luddites didn't attack employers who used the machines intelligently, ie employed more workers or improved working conditions. They were not anti technology, just against some of it's uses by some people. If being against nuclear power means being associated with people who fought rather than just bendover and take it, then I'm proud to be called a Luddite!

What?? by Enoch+Root · 1999-09-30 02:12 · Score: 1

Those living within a six-mile radius of the plant were told to stay indoors.

What?? If the air is contaminated, then staying indoors won't change a thing. If atoms in the air are radioactive, everyone's gonna get it anyway. As for direct radiation from the central, the only thing that can help is: 1) shielding, and 2) distance. Thinking whether you're indoors or outdoors will make a difference is like thinking a layer of normal clothes will protect you from a bullet.

They wouldn't get me to stay indoors following this. I guess the people from the surrounding village don't really know what's going on.

If the Japanese Government acts so irresponsibly, this could get a lot worse...

"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

Re:What?? by Paradox+!-) · 1999-09-30 02:25 · Score: 1

I think part of it is to control the local's reaction. (no pun intended) If everyone is inside, and they need to evacuate, it's a helluva lot easier to do, street-by-street etc. If people hear about a nuclear accident, and the authorities DON'T tell them to stay inside (for whatever reason) the first people driving out of the area like bats out of hell are enough to cause a panic. More people would probably suffer/die as the result of a panic than of the accident itself...at THIS point.
Re:What?? by phil+reed · 1999-09-30 02:31 · Score: 0

If the air is contaminated, then staying indoors won't change a thing. If atoms in the air are radioactive, everyone's gonna get it anyway.
The chances that the air itself are radioactive are minimal - the mass wouldn't be contacting that much air. Keeping indoors would reduce contact with radioactive dust.
I agree, though - time to scoot. The further away, the better.

...phil

--

...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Re:What?? by Paradox+!-) · 1999-10-07 23:02 · Score: 1

Actually, I used to live in NH when the whole Seabrook fiasco started. The original evacuation plans involved getting SCHOOL BUSES to drive everyone out of the area.

There is, if memory serves, only one road that can actually get you effectively and quickly in and out of that area.
Re:What?? by Enoch+Root · 1999-09-30 02:43 · Score: 1

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, I meant particles of dust, not the air itself. That's what I meant by 'atoms in the air', and not the atoms of the air itself.

"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

Wasn't Godzilla the result of a nuclear accident?! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 12:59 · Score: 0

Now I wonder what horrors Japan has to face in the light of this new nuclear accident!!!

Re:Before you get all excited by Hobbex · 1999-09-30 13:00 · Score: 1

The humans in the Matrix served only as a battery. They mention the use of fusion power as well.

Of course, your unlikely to have accidents putting to much hydrogen into a container (well, unless someone lights a cigarette).

-
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

Solar Ineffective? Not! by ai0524 · 1999-09-30 13:21 · Score: 1

If I recall correctly, collecting only 1/3 of all the incident solar radition on domestic American rooftops for a single day produces enough energy to power the US for a whole year.

Sound effective to me.

--
Share bicycle touring info worldwide: http://wheretocycle.com

Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:26 · Score: 0

wow. stereotypes at work...

japanese people aren't allowed to make mistakes? you're characterizing an entire ethnic group as anal?

that being said, it must have been a giant act of stupidity to cause this accident. there should have been _some_ sort of safeguard, like when you're measuring milk to go into the cake mix when you're a little kid. you don't hold the friggin' box over the bowl, sloshing it in. you measure it away from the mix, in a cup, then bring it over and carefully place it in.

the dangerous amount of uranium should've never been brought anywhere close to the danger zone.

if i'm talking out of my ass, tell me.

Re:Cherenkov Radiation by quadong · 1999-09-30 13:25 · Score: 1

I don't think that the uncertainty principle has anything to do with the speed of light limit. You can't reach the speed of light because as you approach it, your relitavisic mass approaches infinity, and the more massive you are, the harder it is to accelerate. The uncertainty priniple deals with subatomic particles mostly and for the most part does not apply to large objects, but all objects have to stay under the speed of light.

Incidentally, the medium to which you refer in your last paragraph is a Bose-Einstien condensate.

Global reach. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 13:45 · Score: 0

Well that's one way of looking at it. How about, because we're a more 'wired' global community.
Word gets out faster. Things are scrutinized more carefully. Information travels faster, farther.
Think of all the thinks that might have happened in the past that weren't covered because no one knew,

Re:What's the Blue Light? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:27 · Score: 0

No, it's the air being ionized.

Nuclear Power IS safe! by NovaX · 1999-09-30 14:05 · Score: 2

Replyng to a first poster always kills your karma, but...

Nuclear power is safe. While these incidents happen, I'm not going to say "how safe is your car?" because that's not what I mean. If you researched, or ever talked to nuclear scientists (this is how I know), there are many designs that are entirely safe. The water method is, as I've been told, a horrible but popular method. Its cheap and efficent, just not safe. There are reactor types that can never reach a point causing such damage as we've seen, here and elsewhere. Nuclear power is not the cleanest, but if scientists rather then polititions run the show, it can be low radiation.

Secondly, this is a fission reactor. Fission means lower efficency, lower energy, higher levels (not in ammount, but in radiation levels) of waste. Fusion is quite different. Of course, fusion reactors ar not here, at the moment. I've seen graphs from LLNL which predicted the first in 2010, but their project, NIF, was supposed to be done and operational in 2001. I'm told this is likely in 2003 or later. Blame managers and fake scientists, along with accountants who shifted NIF funds, and polititions who gave jobs to companies that could never handle them.

What is NIF? National Ignition Facility, a project that will be the first fusion laser. Other lasers, like LLNL's Nova laser (which was copied by other contries - Japan, England, France, etc - France even using LLNL's colors), could reach fusion. NIF is far better, though the quality of the laser has degraded due to those damn business/IT-style scientist guys. NIF will be fully safe, and I've talked to a few working on just that, to ensure employees are not harmed.

So before you spit out all the bs the media talks about, remember the media also calls crackers hackers, the media helped make a polition's campaign dead by saying niggardly, etc. The media is full of.. Read some physics, talk to some scientists, ponder a few questions. Did you know, for one, there have been nuclear bombs made for contstruction? These leave no radiation - it dicipates in 48hours! Guess what, this isn't fiction, it just isn't doable because of the fear and misunderstandings of the public.

And guess what, Japan screwed up. Not because of technical merits (they have an 'ok' program, but like the rest of the world, they mostly leech off of the US), but because politions got in the way, etc. Don't attack the technology or the scientist, tell your politions to stop screwing tht 14 year old girl and do something to earn his pay.

--

"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue

Does this remind anyone... by Ded+Bob · 1999-09-30 06:35 · Score: 0

of a lawyer chasing after an ambulance (no offense to lawyers). I read this in another post about the accident:

In Washington, President Clinton expressed deep concern, offered assistance. "This is going to be a very hard day for the people of Japan," he said.

I get the feeling he is trying to suck up to this accident and be seen giving help to Japan. The fact that he said "a very hard day" is what made me think this way. If you were wanting to help someone, you would most likely say something like, "We (the U.S.) offer to help anyway we can," without stressing how Japan may be suffering. I really am disgusted by people who feed off the misery or problems of others.

Re:What is being done? by DHartung · 1999-09-30 06:40 · Score: 3

Just FYI, nobody is "prepared" for any disaster. The authorities conducted an evacuation and are evaluating the situation before taking rash action.

Contrary to widespread popular belief, a nuclear reaction is not in itself dangerous. Nuclear reactions are taking place all the time wherever there are radioactive minerals. The danger relates to the amount of radioactivity and the length of time of the reaction.

[There are dinner plates -- Fiestaware -- that were glazed back in the 30s with radioactive uranium. (Gave it a characteristic orange color.) They're decaying: a nuclear reaction, but it takes a very long time. You don't keep them in the house or eat off of them. But they're safe to own.]

In this case, a nuclear reaction was caused involving a certain amount of uranium with other amounts of water and nitric acid. The uranium in question would be decaying and emitting radiation as a matter of course; what happened here is that the material was concentrated enough that decaying particles from the uranium atoms strike other atoms and trigger a further reaction. This is simply a "self-sustaining" nuclear reaction.

This does not compare to Chernobyl. In Chernobyl, a reactor-sized pile of fuel was not only in a self-sustaining reaction, there was an explosion and fire. The damping system was permanently damaged. The roof was blown off the structure (this was one of the biggest errors made by the Russians: no containment structure). The fire was spewing radioactive ash high into the atmosphere. Without containment or control systems, stopping the fire was the only option. Even so, the way in which it was done (involving panic, local and army firemen with no training, and contradictory instructions from various levels of officials), and the criminal choice of not evacuating the town, were of greater importance.

This chain reaction in Japan, though, is simply exactly what Enrico Fermi caused to happen, for the first time, under the seat of the University of Chicago's football stadium.

What do you do when you have a critical mass that begins a self-sustaining nuclear reaction?

Well, two things, basically. You separate the material; or you insert dampers.

What they're doing here is a process of attempting to separate the material by draining radioactive water (not into the environment, of course, but into a holding tank). This way they can reduce the fuel beneath critical mass and the chain reaction will dissipate naturally.

No comparison with Chernobyl, really; more like other lesser accidents that have happened, such as Three Mile Island, or Windscale. In terms of human error and botched procedures, though, hopefully this will offer many lessons.

--
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}

Re:No, Nope! Absolutely not! by QuadPro · 1999-09-30 14:32 · Score: 1

People fear that which they do not understand. If the averabe person put 10% of their NIMBY energy into learning about nuclear energy, they'd be lining up to but plant-side property.

Okay, this is the second time I see that word, and now I'm curious: what does NIMBY mean?

Estimating Dose and Biological Effects by wjwlsn · 1999-09-30 14:42 · Score: 2

DISCLAIMER: I am not a health physicist. I'm a nuclear engineer, but I don't specialize in this area... but I thought some Slashdotters might be interested in what I found in my reference material.

The CNN Story had this to say about the immediate effects on two of the plant workers:

Hisashi Ouchi, 35, and Masato Shinohara, 39, were listed in critical condition, hospital officials said. The two were in a state of shock with fever and diarrhea.

Pulling out my trusty copy of Introduction to Health Physics, 2nd edition, by Cember, I find that diarrhea is first mentioned under the heading of Gastrointestinal Syndrome, at a dose of about 10 Grays (1000 RAD) or higher. Effects of this condition are a consequence of "desquamation of the intestinal epithelium"... basically translated as peeling away of the inner layers of the intestine. Other symptoms include (as given in Cember:

acute blood changes,
ablation of bone marrow,
mailaise and fatigue,
epilation (skin peeling),
severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

As a point of reference, Cember lists an exposure of 7 Grays (700 RADs) as being the LD-50/30 dose for humans... i.e., 50% of people die within 30 days of a 700 RAD acute exposure. At the probable dose level experienced by the two workers mentioned above, "...death within 1 to 2 weeks after exposure is the most likely outcome."

In short, these two workers are in a whole world of hurt, and will probably be dead fairly soon. It's incredible that something like this could happen... was allowed to happen. I can't imagine what kind of flap is going to follow.

--
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.

Re:Estimating Dose and Biological Effects by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 17:33 · Score: 0

No flap at all, mate, this is Japan. Expect a thorough and efficient coverup, complete with television pictures of happy school children being shown around the "completely safe" reprocessing plant within the next week.
No kidding, that's what they did last time a serious nuclear accident took place.
Re:Estimating Dose and Biological Effects by wjwlsn · 1999-09-30 18:16 · Score: 1

According to this very informative article on NucNet, the maximum dose equivalent received by a single individual was approximately 8 Sieverts (800 REM). This is a HUGE dose equivalent. The normal US limit for radiation workers is 5 REM per year, I believe.

I mentioned Grays and RADs above, which are simply dose, as opposed to dose equivalent, which factors in absorbed dose and biological effects. As a first cut, you could assume a one-to-one correspondence between dose and dose equivalent. So, to put 800 REM in perspective, you basically have a dose around 800 RAD. Since the LD-50/30 dose is about 700 RAD... well, this person has less than a 50/50 chance of surviving over the next 30 days.

I sincerely hope this person makes it.

--
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.

Wait for the facts... by chazR · 1999-09-30 06:40 · Score: 4

At the moment the best information that I have could (charitably) be called 'hearsay and rumour', but here's how I understand it so far:

1) This was a fuel processing facility, so comments like 'meltdown', 'China syndrome' and 'Chernobyl' are ridiculous.

2) It is reported that approx. 5 times the correct amount of Uranium was introduced into a chemical treatment vessel.

3) Two plant workers are 'seriously ill'. 30+ others were 'exposed'

4) Totally unconfirmed reports have been published of workers 'seeing a blue light' and feeling unwell.

5) People have been advised to stay indoors and wash off any rainwater they may have been in contact with.

Point 1: This facility is *not* a nuclear reactor. The worst that is likely to happen is a nasty, rather radioactive, chemical mess that will take a lot of time and effort to clean up. Even if the nuclear reaction (that may or may not have taken place) is still continuing, it will cool down on it's own. It is very difficult to design a reactor to keep a fissile reaction running for any length of time.

Point 2: It will be some time before we know why too much uranium was allowed into the processing environment. Let's not start blaming anyone until we know the facts.

Point 3: If you are listed as 'seriously ill' after an being involved with an event like this then you will be extremely lucky to live. My thoughts are with these people and their families.

Point 4: I don't know whether to believe this. The blue light sounds like Cerenkov radiation. If you start feeling ill just after seeing this, then you are certainly in the 'seriously ill' category. I doubt you'd be talking to reporters. It may have happened, but I'll wait for more information. You need a *lot* of nuclear activity for Cerenkov radiation to be obvious.

Point 5: Very sensible advice. If it was raining at or soon after the time of the accident, then the rain will absorb a lot of the 'nasties' from the air and wash them to the ground. In these conditions staying inside, closing the windows and avoiding contact with radioactive rain seems to be a good idea. Would you rather get in a car, sit in a traffic jam and wonder how much rain is in the car's ventilation systems? The instinct is to get as far away as possible, but a house is probably safer than a car.

We need to make sure that the Japanese authorities are given every possible assistance in dealing with this. Then we need to find out how it happened. Then we need to put measures in place to stop it from happening again. It has happened before on several occasions, at least once in US, once in UK and once in what was USSR.

Re:Wait for the facts... by Imabug · 1999-09-30 20:48 · Score: 1

A fair bit of information on the details can be found on the Radiation Safety Mailing list archives at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html. Search for "criticality AND Japan" or just "criticality". There are several informative posts there, including news releases that contain some of the details (some still a little sketchy).

imabug

--
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
Re:Wait for the facts... by Imabug · 1999-09-30 21:09 · Score: 1

Just found an IAEA press release on the accident. Contains a few more details about what happened.
http://www. iaea.org/worldatom/Press/P_release/1999/japan_inci dent.shtml

imabug

--
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"

Re:The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by devinjones · 1999-09-30 06:43 · Score: 1

I remember reading somewhere that NASA was perplexed by reports from Astronauts about seeing "little white streaks" out of the corners of their eyes while in orbit. Eventually somebody realized they were seeing Cerenkov radiation from the cosmic rays sleeting through their eyeballs. Now that's a Happy Thought!

heh heh heh by plunge · 1999-09-30 15:01 · Score: 1

As someone wise once said: "Eathquakes are a message from God.... telling us that the tectonic plates of the earth are shifting."

It can't happen here by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 15:13 · Score: 0

It Can't Happen Here
It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm tellin' you my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I've been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple of times
Oh darling it's important that you believe me . . . Ba ba ba bap
That it can't happen here

Who could imagine
That they would freak out somewhere in Japan
Japan Japan too de doo de too doo
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in Tokaimura
To to to to to to Tokaimura, To to to to to to Tokaimura
To to to to to to Tokaimura, To to to to to to Tokaimura
Who could Imagine ?

The Tokaimura plant constantly undergoes problems by dpotter · 1999-09-30 06:43 · Score: 2

For most of 1997, I lived in Mito, Ibaraki - very nearby the Tokaimura plant. During my stay there, we had headline news regarding accidents at this plant on 3 occasions. When I discussed this with the locals, I received unanimous reactions along the lines of "(yawn) yeah, this kind of thing happens all the time." I think it's worth mentioning that I don't believe the anti-nuke movement has the momentum in Japan that it has in America. Nuclear power facilities there don't seem to be held to the same type of scrutiny that you would expect here. Perhaps this public complancency is a factor in the safety record of this plant.

Re:Anyone willing to do a criticality calculation? by mmontour · 1999-09-30 06:46 · Score: 1

One nice thing about the Canadian style of nuclear reactors is that they run on natural uranium (with heavy water as the moderator), thus eliminating some of these dangerous processing steps.

The _Real_ BSOD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 06:46 · Score: 0

Sad to say, those workers experienced the real Blue Screen of Death.
I didn't know humans ran Windows.

Re:Luddite to the core, I see. by Eric+S.+Smith · 1999-09-30 06:48 · Score: 1

we could build totally fail-safe plants today if we could get past the political obstacles.

Do tell.

We could also have disposed of all the spent fuel sitting in pools at nuclear plants by now, except for the anti-nuke political activists who do not want to admit that the technical solutions will work

The only "technical solutions" I've ever heard of involve digging a really big hole, and I'm afraid that I don't trust the stuff to stay buried long enough. If we have to keep it around, I'm for keeping a close watch on it, not hiding it...

--
Mind the Gap

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Master-of-Sloth · 1999-09-30 15:47 · Score: 2

Yes!

Which is worse, the (quite) small risk of limited danger from a nuclear accident (I know Chernoble affected alot of the planet, but it's effects have been relatively limited, and are fading with time), or pumping the air full of chemicals and gases that are impossible to contain, affect the entire planet and cannot be gotten rid of?

Nuclear wast can be contained, it can be stored in containers that withstand impacts of hundreds of miles an hour. Try doing that with several million tons of CO2.

I'm not saying that nuclear is the answer, but it's better than most of the alternatives.

"Nuclear" - AHHHHH!!!! by Anamanaman · 1999-09-30 15:59 · Score: 1

Why would someone hate "nuclear" power. It seems to be a pretty silly thing to stand against since its only free energy. How many people have died in "nuclear" power plants? Do some research and find out. Not more than the number of kids who get shot at high schools. Not even remotely close to the number of deaths from automobiles.

Here's what "nuclear power" is. Unlimited energy. It doesn't run out. Always there. Itsy bit of matter gets turned into energy and bingo, lights on for a city. There are no green gases floating out, or 3 eyed fishes. And like every other thing on this earth, accidents happen. And of course everyone goes crazy, and posts their signs "Ban nuclear power!".

It all boils down to one word. Nuclear.
If it was called BioEnergy, or ThermoFree or something positive, I'm sure it would have caught on. But nope. Some stupid scientist way back when called it the EXACT same name as a Nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are bad. Therefore nuclear power is bad.

If anything, why would someone hate this? I can understand being indifferent about it, but HATING? So many anti-nuclear activists running around with pickets and wasting time. Its just free energy! Calm down!

Ok. I lied. nothings free. It comes at a cost. A tiny bit of stuff that you dont wanna go near. And the problem with this is?? Lets see, we get energy which run computers, tv's, lights, and we get a bit of crap that we dont like. Let me ask you something. How many chemical weapons were MADE ? Dont tell me that these weapons are less deadly. They were made with the intention to be deadly. If we can bottle all that crap up, i'm sure we can get rid of a tiny bit of nuclear particles. Why not send it to antarctica? No one cares about antarctica.

Point is.. dont hate something cause of hype. Its just free energy. An accident here, and accident there. Its worth it. And we learn from our mistakes.

Ps. my grammer sucks and you may not agree with my half witted statements. keep the flames hot.

NIMBY=Not In My Back Yard by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 16:02 · Score: 0

NIMBY=Not In My Back Yard Pimby=Pay In Monetary (Big) You

Re:Cruelty. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 16:05 · Score: 0

I disagree. If someone uses EIGHT times the allowed amount of Uranium in a nuclear facility, they should be SHOT in public for their irresponsible acts. Nuclear industry is so goddamn dangerous, there is ZERO, absolute NULL, NO, NADA tolerance for faults and mistankes. It's time we get ourselves out of that dangerous technology. I know it won't happen, but I sure hope everybody who is pro nuclear gets a nice dose of radiation some day in their lives. That'll teach them.

Rubbish by chazR · 1999-09-30 06:54 · Score: 1

"this thing may reach critical mass
(imminent self-sustaining meltdown) within hours. "

This is tosh. It's *not* a reactor. Meltdown means that a reactor's core becomes molten. I still haven't got all the facts ( and neither has anybody), but what seems to have happened is that a chemical process (probably involving uranium salts in solution) received too much uranium.

This has happened in other countries (including US) before. Somehow, this may or may not have caused a fissile reaction, which may or may not have caused heating which led to an escape of radioactive material.

It may have been caused by a precipitation of a uranium-rich substance. Whatever it was, it needs a moderator to keep a fissile reaction going. Water will do the job, but not very well. This reaction (if there is one - it could have been an entirely chemical reaction) will almost certainly calm down fairly rapidly. I grant that it will leave a nasty mess.

For your information, Japan is got 'geographically isolated'. It's rather close to China and Russia.

Re:Rubbish by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 19:47 · Score: 0

It's not *designed* to be a reactor, but that's exactly what it *is* doing (or, rather, *was* doing). And water is an excellent moderator - almost all power reactors use water as a moderator as well as a coolant (except for a bunch of Russian/former-Soviet reactors which use graphite moderator and some experimental research reactors which use *really* wanky stuff like liquid sodium). It actually did reach "critical mass", which is actually a kind of misleading term - the amount of mass involved is only one of many variables; some others include geometry, the presence of moderation, and the degree of enrichment of the U-235 in question (in this case, ~19%) - but "critical mass" and "meltdown" have nothing to do with each other. Every reactor that has ever operated has a critical mass of fuel, and there have been very few meltdowns. For what it's worth, the "Keff" [(which is the nuclear engineering term for "how critical is it" with 1.000 being exactly critical (i.e. the power will stay exactly constant and not rise or drop with time), below 1 being subcritical (the power will drop with time), and above 1 being supercritical (the power will rise with time)] for this incident was calculated to be approximately 1.044, which is above 1.0 indicating that a criticality incident did indeed occur (which is corraborated by the workers seeing a blue flash). As far as a fissile reaction occuring - anytime you have any quantity of a fissile material you will have a fissile reaction, just not a very strong one. It's not whether a fissile reaction occurs, but rather how strong it is and whether it is critical or not. (I may not be an expert, but I *am* a nuclear engineering major...)

Re:Anyone willing to do a criticality calculation? by CyberPup · 1999-09-30 07:01 · Score: 1

Work into this that the workers actually saw the blue glow, and hypothesize that if it actually is Cerenkov radiation what minimum amount of uranium or nitric acid is required

Insufficient information. 16kg is certainly enough to sustain a reaction (depending on its physical layout, etc), but it depends on many other factors such as temperature, pressure, poisons present (poison to neutrons, not humans ). Nitric acid is not necessary.

Nuclear Safety vs. coal example by baitisj · 1999-09-30 16:11 · Score: 1

What annoys me is how big-time journalists never seem to compare the number of coal-mine fatalities to that of nuclear causes.

Accidents in coal mines are far, far, far more common than nuclear accidens. More fatalities, too.

Take a look at some statistics for coal mine fatalities and you'll see what I mean.

And then there's the oil rig problems...

--
Learn from your parents' mistakes: use birth control.

Here we go again... by E_Let · 1999-09-30 07:03 · Score: 1

People are going to blow this out of proportion, because the headlines contain the word "nuclear". While this disaster doesn't seem anywhere near the magnitude of TMI, Chernobyl, Windscale, I'm sure the media is going to make it seem like is. I sure hope fusion research doesn't suffer... But seriously, if the public is to be wooed into accepting nuclear technology, we should be more careful with our isotopes.

Re:Here we go again... by Field+Marshall+Stack · 1999-09-30 09:46 · Score: 1

Actually, this sounds a good deal bigger than TMI, which AFAIK was barely anything at all. But it's nowhere near the size of chernobyl, that's for sure...
--
"HORSE."

--
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot

Re:God damn by monstar · 1999-09-30 16:31 · Score: 1

not even god can protect you from asbestos

How does this compare to Chernobyl? by dwalsh · 1999-09-30 16:48 · Score: 1

Any knowledgable person out there able to venture an opinion as to how bad this is compared to the Chernobyl disaster?
I presume it is smaller, but numerically how many times worse was Chernobyl, especially with regard to contamination of the atmosphere, which is measureable in other countries.

--
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!

Re:How does this compare to Chernobyl? by CyberPup · 1999-10-01 01:02 · Score: 1

I presume it is smaller, but numerically how many times worse was Chernobyl, especially with regard to contamination of the atmosphere, which is measureable in other countries.

Not even close. Chernobyl was many thousands of times worse in terms of both radiation and contamination (and physical damage).

From what I've heard, the primary problem in Japan was gamma radiation. From what I've heard of the incident, the danger from released contamination is very slight -- there wasn't enough of a reaction to generate anything significant there.

It also depends on how you quantify how serious an accident is. If you include loss of human life into the equation, then this incident could be considered worse than TMI when everything's over and done -- even though TMI would definitely be considered a worse incident in purely scientific terms.

The difference there was the TMI incident occurred in a plant designed to contain radiation and contamination -- and the Japan incident happened in an area that wasn't designed to deal with criticality.

I'm guessing the two folks closest to the incident will die. A few others may have lasting symptoms, but will probably be okay overall (may have increased chance of cancer in the years to come, etc).

-- CP

Cherenkov Radiation by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 07:06 · Score: 0

Cherenkov radiation is light emitted whenever charged particles pass through matter with a velocity greater than that of the velocity of light in that medium. It's a very very very rough equivalent to a "sonic boom" for light, although I cringe to make that comparison.

So what happens in this case is that fission products, water and other molecules that are ionized by the released gammas (i.e. they've lost electrons or obtained an electrical charge in some way), plus the electrons themselves that get jumping from the increased gamma radiation, go streaking through the water causing more ionization in the surrounding medium. The wavelength of the energy released as these ionized particles just happens to be in the visible range (i.e. blue).

Anyone who's ever seen a research (pool-type) reactor or spent fuel pool has seen this blue glow. Very cool.

Cherenkov Radiation
More Cherenkov Info

Re:Cherenkov Radiation by quadong · 1999-09-30 05:34 · Score: 1

I know for a fact that Cherenkov radiation is not produced by gamma rays, because by definition, it is created by a massive particle going faster than the speed of light thru a specific medium.

As far as I know, blue light might be produced in some other way when Uranium fissions, but it is not Cherenkov radiation.

Incidentally, I have seen a non-critical reactor emmiting a blue glow (this was Cherenkov radiation) and lived to tell about it. The reactor itself was at the bottom of a tank of water something like 20 meters deep and the lights had to be off to see it, but I thought I should point out that blue light does not equal radiation poisioning. Also I should mention that it was at the bottom of this tank because water acts as a SHIELD for radiation, contrary to what the CNN article tells you.

Re:Physics of radiation by wjwlsn · 1999-09-30 17:04 · Score: 2

This is sort of correct, but the conclusion you draw is not entirely accurate. Yes, alphas and betas are stopped fairly easily. Alphas can generally be stopped by a single sheet of paper... or your outer layer of dead skin. Betas are a little more penetrating, they make it past your skin before stopping. Neutrons and gammas are more penetrating yet, they go a good ways inside before they stop.

The problem is this. While alphas may be slowed down and stopped easily, they give up a lot of kinetic energy as they do so. They are rather massive (basically a helium nucleus), and strongly charged (+2). This is why they stop so quickly, shedding all their kinetic energy in a relatively small space as they slow down. That's why it's not good to inhale alpha emitters... there's a lot of soft tissue in your lungs, and alpha emitters can screw it up royally. But basically, you have to ingest alpha emitters for there to be any damage.

Betas are different. They're less massive (basically an electron), but are still charged (-1 or +1). Betas are weakly penetrating, but impart a fair amount of energy as they slow down. Generally speaking, the most common hazard from betas is dose to the lens of the eye.

Neutrons, being uncharged, don't slow down as rapidly as alphas or betas. They do slow down though... either by scattering off light nuclei (hydrogen and carbon... hmm, not much of that in the human body, is there?) or by being absorbed. In the process of slowing down, neutrons have the capability of inducing ionization in the materials through which they're traveling. Or, they can be absorbed, causing nuclear transormations which can lead to emission of other types of ionizing radiations. But as far as risk from neutrons go, it's the induced ionization that is more of a problem.

Finally, there's gamma radiation (high energy photons). These are very penetrating, probably passing all the way through your body, but probably causing some damage along the way. The damage from gammas is not usually direct, however. A gamma may, when passing close by a nucleus, spontaneously disappear and be replaced by an electron and a positron. If a gamma undergoes scattering off an electron, the electron could be released. In both these cases, you've had a release of charged particles that will interact with the material around them.

So what I'm getting at, basically, is that all radiation presents a risk. The amount of risk is dependent on the type of radiation, the amount of radiation, the energy of that radiation, where the radiation is, the properties of the material the radiation's traveling through, etc. etc. etc. It's pretty hard to say that any one type is worse for you than another... it all depends.

--
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.

Re:Before you get all excited by cdlu · 1999-09-30 07:07 · Score: 1

Methinks the earthquakes during the war may have led more then a few people to worry about new high powered enemy weapons causing earth quakes. :)

Anyway - that's off the nuclear subject.

Though that reminds me that there are several nuclear power plants built nicely in the middle of fault lines. (New Brunswick, California, a few other jurisdictions too).

Seems we need to contact geologists a little more.

--
OFTC: By the community, for the community

OOOOOO LOOOK! GODZILLA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 17:04 · Score: 0

Latest Reports Confirm That A Giant Green Lizard Has Emerged From The Meltdown!! OOO ME NO RIKEY!!!

Re:Physics of radiation by wjwlsn · 1999-09-30 17:09 · Score: 1

You would get a significant dose of photons as well.

--
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.

valve failed open most likely by Barbarian · 1999-09-30 07:16 · Score: 2

Hi,

I worked in an (unnamed) Chemical plant under construction, and there were valves that should have been Fail Closed which were Fail Open. Why? The EPC (Engineering Procurement Contractor) had ordered the wrong valves, and someone had switched the designation to cover it up. Because of Due Diligence, we discovered it and were able to make proper safeguards.

It's likely that a valve designed to regulate the flow of a slurry of Uranium Oxide (or PuO2, but that'd be a national secret if they were purifying Pu) failed open.

Re:Cherenkov Radiation(Was: Re:What's the Blue Lig by chazR · 1999-09-30 07:18 · Score: 1

The last reports I heard seemed to suggest that the blue flash *may* have been due to a chemical explosion. I hope it wasn't Cerenkov radiation. That would indicate a significant nuclear reaction under water.

Oh No ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 07:19 · Score: 0

If this slows the production of the new Playstation console, I don't know what I will ever do.

Brought to you by someone with too much time on his hands and the letter Q.

Re:No, Nope! Absolutely not! by wjwlsn · 1999-09-30 17:25 · Score: 1

In the US, there is no operating commercial reactor from a standard design. However, there are a lot of similarities in how US plants of different design are operated, maintained, etc.

Other countries did a little better job at standardizing, France in particular. Korea is also doing very well at standardizing their plant designs. And even the US is not doing too badly in the standard design area. True, none of these "standard" designs have been built in the US yet, but there are some in other countries. Japan has the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa (Units 6 and 7). Korea has several ABB System 80 pressurized water reactor plants. Both of these are the bases for the next generation of standard US plant designs.

--
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.

World Wide Stop!!! by dok666 · 1999-09-30 18:10 · Score: 1

For whom did those innocent people die?
They died for money!!!
They died for a government that does not care about nuclear risks! Stop those killing bastards!

If the money put in nuclear power science had been put into solar power science, we would have solar plants that are as profitable as nuclear ones!

Stop it, time will come and we will be blown up by ourselfes...

Re:Physics of radiation by kma · 1999-09-30 07:22 · Score: 1

I would think the people involved would have been primarily irradiated with neutrons; those are, after all the stuff of fission, and this was a criticality accident.

godzilla by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 07:26 · Score: 0

i dunno maby the japaneese are just trying to grow a large firebreathing lizard and screeming moth because they found a space dragon egg about to hatch......hmmmmmm

A few of the problems with that ... by fable2112 · 1999-09-30 19:03 · Score: 2

OK, first of all, energy-efficient alternatives have this way of getting scrapped in favor of wasteful ones in the name of "creating jobs" and because the more "wasteful" industries are big business. Racist stereotypes of Mexicans + heavy pressure from the lumber (and other) industries = criminalization of hemp. Oddly, there was once a (IIRC, WWII) propoganda film called "Hemp for Victory." Interesting, huh?

If someone were to develop a clean, cheap, efficient source of power, it would never hit the market thanks to Big Oil. When managed properly, hydroelectric, wind/solar, and even nuclear power can be quite effective. Locally, we use a good bit of hydro and nuclear power, and I haven't seen problems.

OTOH, one of the big problems with nuclear energy is the question of "where to put the waste." Locally, the people who run a nearby salt mine thought that abandoned parts of the mine would be perfect. But while they were in the process of getting this approved, some very bad things happened. Specifically, the abandoned mine began to collapse (whether due to a rare earthquake or a potentially-less-stable mining technique that was used there, I don't know). Water began flooding in at the rate of thousands of gallons a minute, eroding the salt, causing the mine to collapse further, and contaminating what was once a good source of groundwater with a very large quantity of salt. I was in college at the time, and found out that the dorm I lived in might have its foundation cracked sometime between five and 50 years from now if they can't find some way to stop the water. In nearby towns, there are areas where the land has just dropped six feet.

I'd rather not think about how much worse all this would have been if there HAD been nuclear waste in there. Ick.

--
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today ... but it wasn't anybody I knew" -The Moody Blues, "Dear Diar

Hmm.......... by MAXOMENOS · 1999-09-30 07:30 · Score: 1

It appears that someone mixed about 6 times too much uranium into a fuel processing tank.

Must have been a mistake converting to Metric.

--
Finding God in a Dog

No Go Zone in Russia by FirstEdition · 1999-09-30 19:09 · Score: 1

Yes, I have read about this one. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the place. Apparently in the early 60s the Russians had a *major* nuclear disaster in a research town which officially didn't exist. Of course, at the heght of the cold war, the Russians didn't exactly announce the accident to the western press.

I believe that abnormal radiation levels were detected by US spy flights over the area.

In the face of overwhelming empirical evidence, the disaster was finally officially acknowledged by the Russian government in the early 80's.

To deal with it, they say "just drive fast" through the area.

Re:Luddite to the core, I see. by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 07:33 · Score: 3

You want guaranteed safety? Look at some of the designs for gas-cooled reactors with pelletized carbide fuel. They can be designed so that "thermal broadening" cuts off the chain reaction before the fuel gets near melting; if you turn off the cooling fans, physics would shut them off.

The only "technical solutions" I've ever heard of involve digging a really big hole, and I'm afraid that I don't trust the stuff to stay buried long enough.

Depends what you bury. Fission products (the actual waste) have half-lives of 50 years or less. You could bury that or keep it around at your option; the Pyramids are as old as 5000 years, and in that time all of the cobalt 60 and strontium 90 and other ugly stuff would have all turned cold. It isn't going away overnight, but it doesn't have to. Radioactivity is actually an advantage compared to chemical poisons which might not degrade for millenia, or elemental toxics like mercury which will be toxic forever.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

They are now saying people can come outside by AppyPappy · 1999-09-30 19:26 · Score: 1

I'd come outside for sure. And drive my ass as far away as I could.

--

If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

Re:really sad... by Eric+S.+Smith · 1999-09-30 07:44 · Score: 1

Washing is in fact very important, because the last thing you want to have happen is have some piece of radioactive dust fall on you and lodge in your skin.

No, the last thing you want to have happen is to inhale it deep into your lungs. Since it's probably only emitting alpha particles, getting it on your skin isn't terribly dangerous (though not, of course, at all desirable). The radiation is blocked by the outer layers of your skin, including the part that you'd ordinarily shed in short order anyway, and never makes it into your body where it can cause more serious trouble.

Since's its continuously generating radioactivity, you're almost guaranteed to have cancer in very short order

My, that's a large piece of dust you must be thinking about. The effects of such things are generally measured by the increased risk of developing cancer within your lifetime, however, rather than weeks until tumours develop ... not a happy thing either way, but fallout sure ain't gonna melt your face off in the street.

--
Mind the Gap

First nasa , now this? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 07:49 · Score: 0

Who are they hiring? school drop outs
to handle uranium? Morons doing maths?

Send em back to school.

Re:The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 19:28 · Score: 0

> Compton scattering doesn't transfer too much
> energy to the electron (think about the mass
> difference -- photons have none, so it is very
> hard to exchange momentum and energy with a
> free electron .

It's not hard at all, if the photon energy
is similar to or greater than the electron rest
energy.

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Audin · 1999-09-30 07:54 · Score: 1

Besides which, why should we assume we need to use up all the fissionable material now? Maybe we'll be better capable of using it in a few centuries if we wait.

There is a huge amount of fissionable material available on this planet alone. Even if we converted to use it as out sole energy source we wouldn't run out for a very long time. Add breeder reactors and it'll last even longer. We're talking eons here.

Re:Blue Flash by phil+reed · 1999-09-30 19:37 · Score: 1

The blue glow is called the Heaviside effect, IIRC. It happens because there's a shitload of ionizing radiation in a small area causing nearby matter to glow.

Uh, no. It was very likely Chrenkov effect radiation, due to the increased generation of high-energy neutrons hitting the tank of water (or alternatively the fluid in their eyeballs).

The rest of your comment is pretty much on target, though.

...phil

--

...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."

Re:Hydro-electric Power is not safe! by Audin · 1999-09-30 07:57 · Score: 1

Personally I like my power from good-old coal burning power plants! With extra Sulfur!

Mmmm. And all that airborn radioactive contanimination from the coal seams. Cool stuff, that coal...Smog AND radioactivity...

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Audin · 1999-09-30 07:59 · Score: 1

Nuclear power offers us the chance to concentrate the nastiness, rather than spreading the products of combustion in the atmosphere, or polluting our water with the nasty stuff that solar panel production produces.

Finally! Someone else who understands! Now the few other enlightened humans just have to teach everyone else...

also... by SEAL · 1999-09-30 08:04 · Score: 1

Any deuterium (aka heavy water) DOES provide neutrons, in addition to the slowdown behavior described. This probably isn't the case here, though. However, some reactors use heavy water as the moderator in order to decrease the U-235 purity required to sustain a chain reaction. I believe Canada uses such reactors. Low U-235 purity means you can't make weapons with it, which is a good thing politically, and security-wise.

What exactly is the result? by urajah · 1999-09-30 02:12 · Score: 1

Is the reaction still going on or is it over?

Re:What exactly is the result? by Jburkholder · 1999-09-30 02:36 · Score: 2

Last report I heard was that there were possible still ongoing "criticality incidents" but that workers could not re-enter the plant becauske of 4000x the 'normal' radiation, but that when they could go in, they would drain the water from the tank where the stuff was being processed (35 lbs instead of the normal 5lbs) in order to stop further reactions.
Scary shit.

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 19:39 · Score: 0

IIRC, modern fusion bombs use extremely powerful plastic explosives to set off the fusion component. Using a fission bomb to trigger a fusion bomb was the old way of doing it, but I don't think that we still do that.

That's completely wrong. The level of compression required in a hydrogen bomb's secondary is far beyond what could be provided by chemical explosives. Powerful plastic explosives may reduce the size of the primary, though.

cue Godzilla... by zonker · 1999-09-30 02:13 · Score: 0

the streets of Tokyo are in panic!

"Gojira! Gojira!" The people cry...

cue the tanks and airplanes...

hehehe ;)

--

Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

really sad... by Mr.+Penguin · 1999-09-30 02:13 · Score: 1

The really sad aspect of this story is what the people involved are being advised to do. I have heard reports that the Japanese government has issued an announcement that everyone should stay inside their houses and keep the doors locked. I am sure that is incredibly effective against radiation. Also, people have been advised that if they are to get any radioactive matter on their skin, they should wash it off immediately with soap and water. To me, that sounds useless. I don't think it would do any good.
Brad Johnson
Advisory Editor

--
Brad Johnson

Re:really sad... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:23 · Score: 0

Why do you thing washing radioactive particles would be useles? That is exactly what you should do if you contaminate your skin with radioactive material.
Re:really sad... by Hiro_Protaganist · 1999-09-30 02:23 · Score: 1

You have to cut the RAD's any way that you can. You do get some more protection from staying inside than outside. How much depends on the material of the house. What else can you do at this point? Maybe lead based paint would be a Good Thing :)

--

_________
Sometimes, when I'm feelin' bored, I like to take a necrotic equine and assault it physically.
Re:really sad... by rde · 1999-09-30 02:25 · Score: 1

As was pointed out earlier, the reason people should stay indoors is because of the possibility of radioactive rain.
As for the 'wash it off'; that's exactly what you should do. Radioactivity isn't some sort of ephemeral aether that can't be detected; it has a physical presence, and if you get it on your skin you should wash it off ASAFP.
Re:really sad... by Snok · 1999-09-30 02:37 · Score: 1

I don't think those advices are so bad after all. Staying indoors is a good idea, as opposed to getting stuck on the highway. The radioactive dust will settle as any other dust. Wind is bad, and it's windy outside. Also, it's always easier to calm people down if you make them think they can do something about their situation, anything at all. If people are calm, it's safer for everyone, even if the calming procedures are themselves next to useless. Can you say "duck and cover"?
Re:really sad... by jafac · 1999-09-30 03:00 · Score: 1

"Duck and Cover" was to make the skeletons easier to clean up afterwards. Not sprawled out across the floor, just roll the neat little ball into the bodybag. . . wow, that was pretty nasty. Is there a moderation selection: -1 morbid?

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:really sad... by karnal · 1999-09-30 09:02 · Score: 1

dear god...

how about "-1...laugh out loud at a tragedy"

I just about lost my cookies...

--
Karnal
Re:really sad... by Jherico · 1999-09-30 05:47 · Score: 1

I am sure that is incredibly effective against radiation
These are both actually reasonable precautions. Presumably the worst of the prompt effects (the radiation that generated the 'blue flash') are come and gone. What you have to worry about now is contaminents, radioactive dust, radioactive liquids and the like. Staying indoors limits exposure to such things.
Washing is in fact very important, because the last thing you want to have happen is have some piece of radioactive dust fall on you and lodge in your skin. Since's its continuously generating radioactivity, you're almost guaranteed to have cancer in very short order, and if its strong enough, you can get sick not just from genetic damage, but from just massive amounts of cell death and from chemically reactive materials (even if uranium and plutonium were not radioactive they would still be deadly poison, and as they are radioactive, most of the elements created by their breakdown is also poisonous).

--
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

Re:Fuel limited only in closed systems by izzylobo · 1999-09-30 19:58 · Score: 1

Asteroid mining may be feasible at some time in the future, for various minerals; aluminum, steel, precious metals, etc.

However, it is very unlikely we will find coal, since the most likely source is dead plant material from the Jurassic (and earlier) era, and unlikely we will find petrochemicals, unless we get lucky and Titan (?) does in fact have petrochemicals (or analogs thereof).

There are power sources to be found in space; solar power arrays could beam power back to Earth, magnetic loop generators placed in Jupiter's magnetosphere could be used to generate large amounts of power, the Moon's surface could be mined for Helium-3 for use in fusion reactors. (All of these things are, of course, still theoretical; none of them have been tried yet, for obvious reasons).

But all of these things depend on us surviving long enough to actually manage to implement them; and right now, that means both reducing the amount of power we use, and efficiently and cleanly generating the power we need.

And flat out saying "nuclear power is evilbad, and we shouldn't use it" is as asinine as saying "computers are evil tools used by bureacracies to control the Masses, and should be destroyed". Nuclear power is a tool, and one that, properly controlled and managed, is no more dangerous than any other. Sometimes it is the appropriate tool, sometimes it is not.

--
We are in a desperate race between Stupidity and Transcendance; Don't pick the wrong side.

Re:first post! by Darksky · 1999-09-30 02:14 · Score: 0

A score:1 is default for non-anonymous postings, and it is too new to have been moderated.....
read userfreindly for some funny "first post" stuff in the last 2 days.

--
01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011

Debasement of Political Language by SimonK · 1999-09-30 20:04 · Score: 1

Things like this make me think Noam Chomsky might be right. How does the following quoted texted fit with any definition of "liberal" or "conservative" that makes any kind of logical sense ?

3) liberals run around screaming "Look how awful nukes are!"

4) conservatives tilt their Laz-e-boys up a notch, puff on their pipes, and make devastating comments about "Luddites"

Another perspective by SlydeRule · 1999-09-30 20:18 · Score: 1

My credentials: I ain't a Health Physicist, and I ain't a Nuclear Engineer, but I did work for five years at a U.S. liquid-process nuclear fuel fabrication facility. #1: This is an industrial accident, not a public health issue. Something went wrong and some workers were injured. Unfortunately, it appears that at least a couple of them will not survive. The plant will have a giant mess to clean up, and probably will be shut down for months. Hazard to the populace consists entirely of the effects of panic reactions by unknowledgable officials, by the fourth estate, and by the public themselves. #2: I can almost guarantee that there isn't one "cause". As with airline accidents, these things happen because a combination of many separate mistakes, omissions, oversights, equipment failures, etc., all come together at once. Presuming that the Japanese nuclear regulatory people are as thorough as our NRC, it will take them quite a while to ferret out all of the causes, and then it will be a big effort for the plant to have to correct all of them. My heart goes out to those injured in the accident.

Good solution to energy production needs at hand by Bryce · 1999-09-30 08:07 · Score: 2

As our population and technology has grown (and by all counts, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future), our electricity needs will continue to skyrocket. Upcoming electric cars, higher power computers, smart appliances, industrialization of the third world... yup, gonna need more power, Scotty.

Unfortunately, while all these needs grow, the available power generation capacity is not. True, new petrochemical sources are found every year, but there is obviously a limit to how much can be done there. Nuke plants are just not going to happen (popular opinion aside, the expense of maintaining safety and etc. is high and only going to grow after this disaster.) Hydroelectric and wind are only useful in a few discrete (and often scenic) areas of the world. Coal is a good long-term solution, although dirty and environmentally unsound. Coal, too, will run out, but not for a very long time.

The only truly scalable solution is the sun. Eventually we will have no choice but to go off-planet and build massive solar collector farms on the moon (and later, in space) to get this power and beam it (via microwaves) down to Earth.

I suppose one could use scare-tactics to drive investment into space exploration for the eventual goal of building these things, but there's really no need. As the petrochemicals get used up, and as nuke plants become less and less tolerated, the cost of energy will (slowly) rise. Eventually it will get to the point where it'll be profitable to invest in space. (I hope it's sooner rather than later, 'cause it'd be cool to see in my lifetime.)

Conservation of energy will really just delay the inevitable. Just like the squeaky wheel getting the grease, the space solution will only come about when the cost of developing the answer is less than the expected costs of terrestrial energy consumption. So use up that energy! Save the world by using up all the kilowatts you can!

Seriously, though, the practical answer is to support space development. Go see www.artemis.org and vote for congresscritters that support space. ;-)

Radiation Levels 15000 Times Normal 2km From Plant by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:14 · Score: 0

According to Reuters, radiation levels have now reached 15,000 times normal 1.2 miles from the site of Thursday morning's nuclear accident. ``As of late Thursday night, 3.1 millisievert of neutrons per hour, or about 15,000 times the normal level of radiation, was detected two kilometers (1.2 miles) from the accident site,'' an Ibaraki Prefecture official told Reuters

Blue Flash by Kartoffel · 1999-09-30 08:08 · Score: 1

As the department of energy euphemistically likes to call such things, a criticality excursion often results in a flash of light and a sensation of warmth.
The blue glow is called the Heaviside effect, IIRC. It happens because there's a shitload of ionizing radiation in a small area causing nearby matter to glow.
The Trinity Atomic Web Site at enviroweb.org lists a scary-big table of past US accidents and has a nice index of criticality accidents.
The people living near the Japanese plant probably have little to fear. Workers and rescuers who got too close to the tank as it was fissioning, however, could be in a world of hurt. Radiation affects the body's ability to generate new cells and repair existing ones. Immedeately after a fatal dose the victim may feel nauseous and disoriented, but soon 'recovers'. Several days later the white blood cell count drops to zero and the GI tract's lining begins to disolve and sluff off. It's a horrible agonizing way to die. I really, really, really hope that no one took a heavy dose.

God damn by Dr.+Sp0ng · 1999-09-30 02:15 · Score: 1

Hmmm... I'm not liking all these fun events that are happening near Y2K... well, it makes me feel better about my high credit card bills, anyway :-)

"Software is like sex- the best is for free"

Re:God damn by bungalow · 1999-09-30 05:17 · Score: 1

(donning asbestos suit and rosary)
I've been praying extra hard for the last few months. I don't KNOW WHEN its gonna happen. Maybe not in my lifetime. Maybe not before my 7th-great grandchildren's lifetime, but I'd rather trust in God in such precarious times.

One existing Standard Design reactor by jabber · 1999-09-30 20:20 · Score: 2

There is one existing standard reactor design. It is referred to as the System 80+, designed by Combustion Engineering of Windsor, Connecticut. CE was, decades ago, involved in the development of the standard Navy design. It is now out of the military market, and a part of Asea Brown Boveri.

The design is NRC approved, and is an outgrowth of the very successful, and accident/incident free Palo Verde plant(s) (3 reactor site) in Nevada. For a U.S. site, the design does not need to go through the lengthy and costly 'per site' approval process, provided the location is geologically sound. If not, no deal - but then again, no one would build a reactor on the San Andreas fault line. :)

Other existing plants of this design (or a contractual tailoring thereof for seismic, economic or political reasons dictated by the customer) are located at Yonggwang (2 of 6 units on the site) and Ulchin (2 of 6 units now being constructed) in S. Korea. The remaining units at these sites are Candu (Canadian), Framatome (French) or Westinghouse ... The variety is due to single-mode failure clauses and legal requirements for diversification. Understandable due to the ~$4 billion per unit price tag.

Future projects might include N. Korea, China, and frankly, wherever there's a market. Few people are building new plants these days due to FUD and startup costs.

As for the 'safe nukes' project, I'm all for it. Step 1 is to educate the public about the risks, costs and processes involved, and how they compare to fossil hazzards and background radiation from folks own basements and such.

--

-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.

No, Nope! Absolutely not! by jabber · 1999-09-30 08:14 · Score: 2

That's just so much fear-mongering.

Nuclear technology is just that. Technology.
Yes, it has the potential to cause a lot of harm - this is why Billy-Joe and Bubba don't get to run the plants. It takes training and an education. Any shmoe can shovel coal. Do you want to breate the exhaust? Would you rather have been down wind of that Union Carbide disaster in India in the mid 80's? The coal ash that leaves a traditional fossil plant is more radioactive than anything vented into the atmosphere in the U.S. - this includes 3 mile island.

NukeTech is highly regulated. Accidents happen because people a) make mistakes, and b) cut corners. The benefits of nuclear power are huge, but the technology must be respected, and funded well enough to implement proper respect.

The funding of nuclear facilities (in the US and abroad) is inadequate. They are expected to function like traditional fossil plants, but everyone knows they need a much more steady hand - both on part of the operators and management.

France derives 60-75% of it's electrical power from nuclear sources. They respect it, regulate it intelligently and fund is adequately. They have never, ever had a nuclear accident.

People hear the word 'nuclear' and envision giant mushrooms on the horizon, or picture pulsating, glowing goo creeping towards them. Feh!

People fear that which they do not understand. If the averabe person put 10% of their NIMBY energy into learning about nuclear energy, they'd be lining up to but plant-side property.

--

-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.

Re:No, Nope! Absolutely not! by jabber · 1999-09-30 20:32 · Score: 2

Light vs. Heavy water has little to do with stopping the reaction. But there is a design issue.

Most designs rely on electrical power being available in order to shut themselves down. This is a design decision, and there are multiple backups and unneeded (IMO) complexity. Others require power to keep the reaction going. This way, all you do is cut power, and the control rods fall (gravity) into the core (rather than being forced up into it by a motor) and the chain reaction grinds to a halt.

A standard design is naturally more expensive than a custom one, because in a standard design, a uniform environment for the reactor must be part of the design rather than part of the location.
This is much like providing a standard interface for the reactor 'code', instead of hardcoding values into the given location. So to apply the reactor to a new site, the location interface is changed but the 'code' is the same, instead of redesigning the reactor to match the location...

National pride is a small issue, except to the French, and to customers who hire foreign contractors (designers, engineers) rather than use internal expertise (natural resentment there).

BTW, the top spot is now the Yonggwang#4 reactor with, I believe, a complete fuel cycle of 2 years with an AVERAGE output of 114% of design.

--

-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Re:No, Nope! Absolutely not! by Gorgonzola · 1999-09-30 23:13 · Score: 1

Not In My BackYard

--
-- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 08:16 · Score: 0

If someone made you rip out 2/3 of your house a couple of times while you were building it, told you to stop construction for 3-4 years another time, and had you paying 24% interest on the construction loan all the while - you wouldn't be able to afford a roof either! And that's what happened to a lot of the nuke plants. It's not the plants that are expensive, it's the bureaucrats and the courts that won't allow people to build them and be done.

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by Detritus · 1999-09-30 20:45 · Score: 1

A H-Bomb uses a fission primary (A-bomb) to compress a fusion secondary (lithium deuteride) with radiation pressure. The radiation from the primary fills a radiation channel that surrounds the secondary. The outer surface of the casing of the secondary evaporates, producing kinetic energy that compresses the secondary. Early H-bombs produced most of their yield from induced fission in the U-238 jacket of the bomb. There is also a Pu-239 "spark plug" in the center of the secondary. Read "Dark Sun" for a complete description of the process.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Cruelty. by technos · 1999-09-30 02:15 · Score: 1

Frankly, I hope the pair of morons that thought putting SEVEN times the normal amount of Uranium in the processing batch die a horrible death from the radiation. Not only did they endanger themselves, but all of their co-workers and potentially 35,000 other people if there is indeed a continuing reaction! This is natural selection at its finest; Be a moron, get irradiated and die.

I would think Japan would be a little anxious over nuclear anything, after that little bang back in the forties. I sure would be.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!

Re:Cruelty. by kaisyain · 1999-09-30 21:04 · Score: 1

I hope everybody who is pro-car gets run over by a car in their lifetime. Cars are far more dangerous than the nuclear industry.
Re:Cruelty. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:27 · Score: 0

> Be a moron, get irradiated and die

Judging from your inane comments you're probably up next.
Re:Cruelty. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:39 · Score: 0

Please, read again what you've written there. Read it, think about it, think about the families of these men, imagine it had happened to someone you love. After that, be a man and write an excuse, could you?
Re:Cruelty. by bungalow · 1999-09-30 05:19 · Score: 1

Truly morbid question:

Could these be the next Darwin Award winners?
Re:Cruelty. by dcs · 1999-09-30 05:29 · Score: 1

They are very upset about nuclear weapons. Prefectures with port facilities often upset the central government by passing laws, issuing edicts or things like that demanding that any ships using the port facilities be declared nuclear weapons-free, which goes against US Navy policy (saying whether there are weapons or not).

Anyway, while there is a healthy amount of people protesting against nuclear everything, this is a small island nation of 110 million people. One has to generate energy in some way. And, in the end, nuclear energy is the one that does the least damage to the environment, given Japan geography. They don't have any other viable option, at the present.

Meanwhile, I have watched four straight hours of news, most of it the nuclear accident, with an occasional weather forecast. I'm tired, I'm going.

(from 110km of the accident)

--
(8-DCS)

Yahoo following the story - link by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:15 · Score: 2

Yahoo is following the story on this page.

Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by GraemeL · 1999-09-30 08:34 · Score: 1

Thanks for the very informative post. I couldn't work out what was acting as a moderator and you've cleared that up.

As to how they got 8 times the usual quantity of U-235 in the tank, I've seen reports that the workers were carrying out 'an experiment'. If this is true, the incident has chilling echoes of the Chernobyl accident.

Dangerous things..... by Excel · 1999-09-30 20:46 · Score: 1

I guess we should quit using the following:

Fire - People get burned.

Electricity - People get electrocuted.

Water - People drown.

Food - People get fat or high cholesterol and die.

Breathing - Risk of inhaling asbestos.

People, if we avoid doing things to protect ourselves from the dangers inherent in being alive...we'll die anyway. It's not a matter of black and white but a lot of gray. We need to do what we can to reduce risk, but it's always a trade-off. It just sucks being on the short end of the trade-off stick. This doesn't avoid retards that can't follow directions when adding uranium to a fuel processing plant, however, it now seems that to reduce risk changes need to be implemented (NOT eliminating nuclear power as a resource).

This is just my opinion...who cares if I'm wrong.

Excel

(Everyone is born with a terminal disease called life)

Re:What's the Blue Light? by jkorty · 1999-09-30 08:34 · Score: 1

I guess K-mart will soon have some new employees for their Blue Light Special...

Worst Ever... NOT! + summary by jabber · 1999-09-30 08:37 · Score: 2

Just as a clarification, this is not the worst nuclear accident ever, it is the worst accident ever in Japan.

The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown is still the worst nuclear accident ever - in the world.

This (Japanese) accident did not happen at a nuclear power facility, but rather in a Uranium processing plant. Much too much (7 times) Uranium was added to a mixing tank, resulting in a chain reaction. As of present reports (21:00 EST) the reaction is under control and clean-up has begun.

Approximatelly 40 people have been hospitalized for radiation exposure, of this 2 are critical. The Japanese government has evacuated a 0.35 km radius around the plant, and is considering expanding the evac to 0.5 km. For those not reading the U.S. vs S.I. discussion, this is about 0.3 mile proposed radius.

As of latest report, Godzilla has not yet made an appearance. Area residents (300,000 people) are advised to remain indoors and minimize open air infusion into their residences (close windows, vents, etc). The accident occured at 09:30 Friday local time, 120 km N.E. of Tokyo with winds from the ENE direction clocking now at 15 knots.

--

-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-09-30 08:55 · Score: 2

IIRC, modern fusion bombs use extremely powerful plastic explosives to set off the fusion component. Using a fission bomb to trigger a fusion bomb was the old way of doing it, but I don't think that we still do that.

--
-- 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.

location by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:18 · Score: 0

According to the Manchester Guardian 150 people lived within a 350 yard radius of the facility.
To have a facility like this in a residential area was asking for trouble.

Re:location by dcs · 1999-09-30 05:33 · Score: 1

1) There is no "residential area" in Japan. Remember that this is an OLD country, and they build things on reclaimed land.

2) I defy you to find a place in Japan without anyone 350 meters from it that can site such an installation.

--
(8-DCS)
Re:location by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:34 · Score: 0

Japan is crowded and often companies subsidize housing near the factory/plant/office. If you want a place to like, that may be your only choice. Also, unlike the U.S., not everyone has a car to drive to work. Being close to where you work may be more than a convenience, it may be required. -a

unregulated biowarfare research sounds fine to me. by speek · 1999-09-30 21:02 · Score: 1

...in Andromeda!

I don't think he makes nuclear power sound inherently evil, I think he makes it sound inherenty scary. And who would argue that it isn't scary? Only someone with an agenda.

Oil, contrary to what many like to think, is not likely to run out in 200 years. I'm all for alternatives, but running out is not a concern.
Coal will simply never run out. It's disgusting, so we don't use it as much as we used to. Someday we'll probably think the same about oil.

Hydro - I'm pretty much in agreement.

Solar/wind - Solar could be extremely effective. It's not economical at this time, though. But I'm confident that will change.

Nuclear - /Possible/ accidents -> we all die very quickly! Compared to the other forms of dying you mention, in any case. And it's not clean either. why do you think they're building a massive radioactive waste dump in the desert in the southwest US? Cause nobody wants the stuff and it's causing problems. Typically, these wastes are disposed of in the poorest areas, cause they can't fight effectively against it. Rochester has a nuclear facility, but you can bet our waste is ending up in poor counties like Allegheny or Cortland (NYS I'm talking about).

It seems a bit hypocritical to espouse the virtues of something, but insist the bad parts get shovelled off into someone else's land.

--
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!

crack reporting and circular definitions by eries · 1999-09-30 02:18 · Score: 1

Criticality is the point at which a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining, similar to what happens inside a nuclear reactor.

Anyone care to explain what that means? Anyone out there with some real nuclear plant experience that can give us the lowdown on what really happened (or may have happened). All I got from the article was "something really bad happened, and it has major political ramifications for Japan" - what's up with that?

--
Can your IM do this?

Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by The+Light+Eternal · 1999-09-30 02:31 · Score: 1

Criticality means that there's enough Uranium in a specific batch that the normally radiating neutrons coming out of the Uranium atoms have a statistical probability of 1 of contacting another Uranium atom and causing it to burst out more neutrons, hitting more atoms, causing more neutrons, hitting more atoms, ad nauseum.. basically, criticality is the point where there's enough Uranium to cause a chain reaction.

--
".. I like pork!"
- Brak
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Anonymous Coward · 1999-10-05 01:32 · Score: 0

Huh!?!?
That criticality accident sounds like an lab legend...
What kind of radiation kills a person that quickly?
Whered you hear this, and where can I read more about it (the accident)?

tom
- dunne at iwr dot uni-heidelberg dot de
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Stonehand · 1999-09-30 02:37 · Score: 2

I'm not a physicist, but for no particular reason I have been on a tour of a reactor, and still seem to remember some related elementary foo...

How much do you remember about nuclear fission (which, presumably is what happened in this incident, since the conditions would seem completely inadequate for fusion)?

The splitting of an atom can free neutrons, sending them in various directions. Depending upon various conditions (such as the amount of fissionable material, the presence or absence of materials that either absorb or reflect the neutrons, and so forth), these neutrons may or may not collide with other atoms. These collisions can induce more splitting, leading to the possibility of a self-sustaining chain-reaction.

Incidentally, the NY Times/Associated Press article mentions that the workers thought they saw a blue glow. Dunno about you folks, but this reminded me of Cerenkov radiation. For more info on that, see this page.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:39 · Score: 0

I am not an expert.. but here is how I understand it. As you may know, the nuclear chain raction happens when the neutron(s) given off from the decay of one atom trigger the decay of additional atoms, and so on. This can only happen once a certain number of decays happen within a certain area, and is affected by the speed of the neutrons, amongh other things. IN a nuclear reactor, rods of uranium fuel are inserted in a honeycomb fashion. In the spaces in this honeycomb, carbon 'control rods' are inserted to slow the reaction. They do this by absorbing neutrons, hence preventing them from contributing to the chain reaction as a whole. In other words, they are used to regulate the rate of the chain reaction. The slowing-down of these neutrons by a substance like water or heavy water aids the reaction. I'm not sure why this is. In other words, a small amount of uranium may be radioactive, but if a certain 'critical' mass of this uranium is reached (enough of it in a small enough area), the reaction accellerates itself, and the amount of radiation goes way way up.
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by ibbieta · 1999-09-30 02:40 · Score: 1

I for sure am not an expert but I did spent some time studying nuclear reactions in college. Take the following with a grain of salt, therefore.

A nuclear reactor relies on a few things to create energy from radioactive decay. Of course, one of those things is Uranium (isotope 235 ususally, some 233, and the very common 238 to create Plutonium). Uranium by itself will not cause a self-sustaining reaction, a "catalyst" needs to be used. Water happens to work quite well as a catalyst (as well as graphite which contributed greatly to the Chernoble thing a few years back).

It sounds like, from the reports, that some suicidal moron added enough quality Uranium into some water to start a chain reaction that became self-sustaining. Now, since water acts as sort of a fuel for this reaction, it is hard to put out once started.

Very simply, somehow someone started his own little nuclear power plant.
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Bobort · 1999-09-30 02:44 · Score: 2

It works like this:
Uranium (even highly enriched in U235--the fissile isotope) has a very long half life and thus isn't very radioactive. From a radiation standpoint, it's not too difficult to handle. I operate a nuclear research reactor, and I have held new fuel elements in my hands. Anyway, the way nuclear fission works is that a neutron hits a U235 atom and it splits apart into two lighter fragments and releases on average 2.4 neutrons, and also lots of energy and radiation. These neutrons then go off and start other fission reactions -- a self-sustaining chain reaction. There are many factors that control whether the reaction is self-sustaining, such as the amount of U235 present, geometry (a tight sphere will react more readily than a bunch of spread-out lumps), moderation, etc. Sub-critical means the reaction isn't self-sustaining. This is the "normal" state of things (there are always fissions happening, but at a very low level). Critical means it is exactly self-sustaining. It means a steady state. Supercritical means it's more than self-sustaining -- the rate of reaction is increasing.
Anyway, criticality accidents have happened all too many times before. The usual result is that the people who were initially exposed die of massive radiation exposure, but it's probably not much of a danger to people beyond that. This is entirely different from a "meltdown" or "China Syndrome" accident. Criticality accidents are usually (I think) caused by a change in geomerty that wasn't supposed to happen. I remember hearing about one in which fissile material mistakenly made it into a centrifuge. It was sitting at the bottom of the centrifuge in a subcritical geometry. When they turned it on, it got flung up against the walls of the container, and for a brief instant passed through a supercritical geometry and then went subcritical again. Of course, this killed the operator of the centrifuge. When they sent people in to investigate, one of the things they did was to turn off the centrifuge (since nobody who witnessed the accident was alive, they didn't really know what had happened). Of course, this caused it to go critical again for a brief moment, severely injuring the rescue party.
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 02:48 · Score: 2

(Man, did this thread ever attract lots of comments! Take a few minutes to write, and half a dozen people slip in.)
Briefly: The critical state is where each fission event emits neutrons which create, on average, one more fission (a "chain reaction", like falling dominoes). "Fast" (high-energy) neutrons are not as easily captured by U-235 nuclei as "thermal" neutrons (neutrons which have energies similar to the kinetic energies of particles in bulk materials). This last part is important.
As for what really happened, we're going to be at the mercy of relatively unsophisticated reporters and editors for some time, but it appears that some spent enriched fuel was being reprocessed chemically to separate it from fission waste products. Since the fuel is normally in the form of uranium oxides (extremely high-melting), it must be dissolved in acid to make it soluble at room temperature. Most acids are far from pure (they contain a lot of water), and the hydrogen in acid or water is a good moderator for neutrons. The uranium alone wasn't a problem, but adding it to a solution with lots of neutron-slowing hydrogen raised the neutron capture efficiency to the point where the tank went critical; in effect, it became a nuclear reactor. This is accompanied by lots of pretty blue Cerenkov-radiation light and killer doses of neutrons.
The reaction will stop when the solution gets too concentrated (not enough hydrogen to slow the neutrons) or too spread-out (too many lost neutrons to continue the reaction). Throwing in a neutron absorber like boron would fix it too. If the Japanese have a bomb-disposal robot capable of getting to the tank and dumping some boric acid into it, that would probably get rid of the immediate problem. Then the difficulty becomes one of cleanup.
Of course the big problem is how the workers got 8 times the usual quantity of uranium into the tank against all procedures. Somehow I don't think they were being as orderly and efficient as the stereotype of the Japanese would suggest.
Nope, I don't work in the biz, but I've spent lots of time listening to old pros talk shop.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:crack reporting and circular definitions by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 03:05 · Score: 0

Water is a moderator. The neutrons when first released are moving fast and have a high probability of escaping without reacting with other Uranium atoms. Hydrogen interacts with the high-energy neutrons to form low energy neutron which have a higher probability of causing secondary reactions. Water has a high amount of Hydrogen, H2O.

Water also is a positive feedback loop for a reactor. As the water heats up it expanses and allows more high energy neutrons to escape which causes a slow down in the reaction which generates less heat which cause the water to cool down which moderate more neutrons which speed up the reaction which generates more heat ...... Feedback.

As you follow the story you will here the talk about removing the water. This is a attempt to cause the reaction to slow down and stop. The problem here now is that there is a LOT of latent heat in the Uranium mass. As they take of the water there is a possibility of the remaining water to flash to steam. You end up with a massive steam explosion, which will scatter the plant. But the Uranium mass is not in a configuration to release heat effectively so you start getting hot spots inside the mass that will actually melt the Uranium. Dammed is you do and dammed if you don't.

Re:Physics of radiation by wafath · 1999-09-30 21:08 · Score: 1

Early reports have said the workers who saw the flash had detectable levels of radioactive Na isotopes in their bodily fluids. The only way for this to hapen is if they got a large nuetron dose.

The symptoms (G.I. tract problems within 30 minutes of the incident) are consistant with at least 250 REM, but people suspect that they may have gotten a K-REM.

The LD 50/30 for an accute dose (50% of the people who got this dose are dead in 30 days) is _I think_ about 400 REM.

There is a chance the workers will live. I wouldn't bet on it.

But then, if three workers were killed in another kind of industrial accident, you wouldn't hear about it.

Oh (Answering my own question) by Enoch+Root · 1999-09-30 02:19 · Score: 2

The CNN article was clearer on the subject. They were told to stay indoors because the water that had leaked from the plant had evaporated and it started to rain radioactive rain. My god, that sounds ugly.

"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

Re:Oh (Answering my own question) by phil+reed · 1999-09-30 02:36 · Score: 2

You think that's ugly?
From CNN: The workers at the plant reported seeing a blue light, and then they became ill.
If there was enough radiation to see Cherenkov radiation IN THE AIR, then those guys aren't just sick, they're dead.
All around, this sounds like a very ugly situation.

...phil

--

...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Re:Oh (Answering my own question) by mmontour · 1999-09-30 02:55 · Score: 1

Adding to the ugliness, they were mixing the uranium with nitric acid (from the CNN story).

As for the blue flash, that is indeed bad news. A while ago I was watching some documentary about the early days of the US nuclear program, and there was a similar event where somebody slipped while assembling a plutonium bomb core. The two halves bumped together, causing a blue flash, and delivering a fatal-within-a-week radiation dose.

Actually, re-reading the article, it's possible that the blue flash wasn't in the air, since they were mixing this stuff in a tank of water. So maybe it's not quite as bad.

Re:Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 21:09 · Score: 0

Perhaps it's time to go to the local library and check out _Normal Accidents_ by Charles Perrow...

Before you get all excited by konstant · 1999-09-30 02:20 · Score: 4

I have a feeling some of the more extreme technophiles/conservatives are going to chastise us for being alarmed by this sort of accident. Generally, after a nuclear mishap, the pattern goes like this:

1) BOOOM
2) a number of people are rushed to the hospital
3) liberals run around screaming "Look how awful nukes are!"
4) conservatives tilt their Laz-e-boys up a notch, puff on their pipes, and make devastating comments about "Luddites"

But look folks, nuclear technology really is a technology unlike most others. Only genetic modification has as much potential for literally wiping out the human race if somebody forgets to carry the two. We all know from experience that even experts make miscalculations, and that sometimes the results are hazardous. Generally, these are tragic but containable. They are what you might call "acceptable losses" on the path towards improving the lot of our species.

But I'll be damned if waking up each morning to a pitcher of radioactive milk is acceptable to me. Just a single reactor in Russia threw the world's food supply into havoc for months. And mistakes like Chernobyl have happened before and will happen again. Every once in a while somebody fucks up. It's just that, with nukes, the ramifications are so very large!

The reason that we don't see more accidents like this in Japan is not because nuclear energy is, on the whole, safe. It's because most people have extreme NIMBY reactions to nuclear facility proposals. People are scared of nuclear technology, and I think rationally so. The development of a clever scientific pet trick is not enough justification for its deployment. We do not have to do everything that we can do.

I'm sure that statement alone will be enough to moderate me down on slashdot ;)

-konstant

--
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

Re:Before you get all excited by Tarnar · 1999-09-30 02:35 · Score: 1

Just think of it this way, Nuclear Power works in theory. Then again, so does anarchism, ditto to Communism, Democracy, etc.

Yes nuclear power is cheap. And it's pretty safe if you take the right steps. But the problem at hand is that even relatively minor accidents become much larger, simply due to the forces at work.

So what if you throw some extra coal in the furnace in a coal plant? You'll cough out some extra sulphur because the burning is less clean. That generally doesn't kill everyone within a few miles of the site. But throw some extra uranium on the pile and watch the fireworks start.

We're dealing with very powerful forces that we really don't know how to deal with. Even the 'safest' reactors will screw up, usually at the fault of the guy behind the button. Idiot proof just won't do it.

Incidently, I smell a Darwin Award, with commendations for almost wiping out a small town too (and now I feel ill having said that)
Re:Before you get all excited by cancrman · 1999-09-30 02:39 · Score: 3

You make it sound like nuclear technology is inherently evil. Ummmm....It's not. Yes it's true that it has its downsides, but so do a hell of a lot of other things. I'll just touch on a few here

Oil -> Air Pollution -> We all die slowly and eventually run out of fuel
Coal -> Air Pollution -> We all die slowly and eventually run out of fuel
Hydro -> Environment Damage -> Fish all die (& everything that eats those fish)
Solar/Wind -> Not effective -> We all freeze
Nuclear -> /Possible/ accidents -> We all die slowly

So, sure nuclear energy can fuck us up. But so can a lot of other things that we are already using. Nuclear power is a clean, cheap, & long lasting source of energy. Ok, I wouldn't want one in my backyard. But it is still a necessary evil at this point.

Pete
I can see through time -Lisa Simpson

--
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
Re:Before you get all excited by Jeffrey+Baker · 1999-09-30 02:41 · Score: 3

The amount of radiation released by this accident is tiny compared to the millions of tons of slightly radioactive fly ash spewed out of the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants in China.
China consumes ~25% of the world's coal production.
-jwb
Re:Before you get all excited by mmontour · 1999-09-30 02:43 · Score: 1

So what if you throw some extra coal in the furnace in a coal plant? You'll cough out some extra sulphur because the burning is less clean.

Some extra radioactive Thorium, too...

http://www.em.doe.gov/tie/fall30.html

TANSTAAFL.
Re:Before you get all excited by reverse+solidus · 1999-09-30 02:46 · Score: 1

It's not so much a question of whether nuclear power is dangerous or not. Of course it is. It's a question of whether nuclear power is more or less dangerous than other forms of power generation. Coal and oil fired plants have huge risks associated with them, both in operating the plants themselves, and with the infrastructure necessary to keep them running.

Radioactive milk on your breakfast cereal, or radioactive carbon in your lungs? Nasty kind of choice to have to make, but it's better than sitting in the dark.
Re:Before you get all excited by Karrots · 1999-09-30 02:59 · Score: 1

You forgot about the Matrix.

I mean if we were all in the Matrix who cares we just live our life as normal. But the stupid Resistance messes everything up everytime.

I mean look at Star Wars. If there wasn't a Resistance there would be no problem because people wouldn't know any better.
Re:Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:27 · Score: 0

What about Nuclear Fusion? What are the side effects of that? Torential downpours after a meltdown? :-)
Re:Before you get all excited by zmooc · 1999-09-30 03:06 · Score: 1

First of all: I'm not an expert. Everything I say is based on what I've heard a long time ago.
Tsjernobyl is once again used as an example. It's a very bad example. The type of reactor used in Tsjernobyl is a very bad design. All modern reactors are designed in such a way that an accident as in Tsjernobyl is impossible. They are fundamentally different from the old Russian reactors. The accident in Japan didn't happen on a nuclear plant; it was some weird factory...not sure what they do. Anyway...as far as I know no major nuclear accidents have happened with modern nuclear plants. All arguments I've heard against nuclear energy are based on false arguments. Anyway...i do think there is one major problem about nuclear energy. This problem is the storage of large amounts of highly radioactive waste.

--
0x or or snor perron?!
Re:Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 03:12 · Score: 1
There are quite some theories about the political implications of nuclear science/power. They say that _every_ industry working in the nuclear branch has to evolve a system of totalitarism.
And this IMO absolutly true, you have to contol anything and you mustn't be truthfull to the outside i.e. the population and politicians - the latter only if they are not part of the nuclear industrial or political system, i.e. the normal representative.
There are to many facts hindering the openess of a system which works in the nuclear business, for example
- nuclear garbage, nobody wants to have it near his home
- transport of nuclear material, nobody wants be near that
- the ability to produce nuclear weapons, i.e. you have to have very high security measures everywhere. This gives the ability to stop any information flow to the outsite.
- money: a corporation which admits _any_ failures is in strong danger to be history the next day. It's just to expensive to pay thousands of people getting ill by relativly small escaping quantities of radioactivy.
Re:Before you get all excited by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 03:56 · Score: 1

Burning coal doesn't put radioactive carbon in your lungs; C-14 decays with a half-life of less than 6000 years, and all coal is many millions of years old. C-14 is created in the atmosphere when cosmic rays bombard nitrogen, not in coal seams. Accordingly, coal contains no detectable amounts of C-14. Tramp thorium, uranium, radium, polonium... sure. Just no C-14.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:Before you get all excited by cdlu · 1999-09-30 05:45 · Score: 1

It also makes up ~25% of the world's people production.

More countries need to limit their consumptiveness to more or less proportional to their population

But what is it with accidents and natural disasters lately? There was an earthquake ~7.5 on the richter scale in Mexico today which killed three, and that's the umpteenth >7 earthquake in the last 4 weeks.

Why do I suspect this is largely to do with humans and "progress"?

--
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Re:Before you get all excited by Audin · 1999-09-30 09:21 · Score: 1

You can stick one in my backyard. Go right ahead.
Re:Before you get all excited by Yakman · 1999-09-30 09:28 · Score: 1

Wait, 3 and 4 don't happen. I'm sorry. I guess hundreds of coal workers dieing every year just isn't as news worthy as 19 Japanese people with radiation burns. Millions of Tobacco smokers dying horrible deaths is maybe as news worthy, but just barely.
Yeah! And it's not like the Japanese aren't used to Radiation Burns! Err.. sorry, that was in bad taste ;)
More on topic.. I remember something not too long ago here in Australia where there was a town where a lot of the children had mental problems (learning difficulties and the like). The town was situated right next to one of the biggest Steel Mills in Australia. I don't hear about any deformed children living near the one research reactor Australia has.
Re:Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:48 · Score: 0

Never mind, but it is neither clean nor cheap and even without the lights would not go out.
Might be reducing energy consumption would be a good idea, but although there are very nice high tech solutions they never really seem to make it, strange ...
As a side note, you do not want one in your backyard, but in others backyard is okay, eh ?
Re:Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:54 · Score: 0

While I am not a proponent of nuclear power, I believe it is substantial better than combustion power, particularly coal. Ironically, the burning of coal worldwide releases quite a bit of radioactive material into the environment from the 2-3 ppm of uranium and thorium in the coal. The actual enviromental radioactivity exposure from coal burning is about 200 times that of the entire nuclear power industry operations. Did I also mention global warming? -a

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by phrawzty · 1999-09-30 02:21 · Score: 1

Ok, i'll never do that again, i promise. My conversion to geekdom is complete now, i suppose. And as retribution for being a "first post loser", i'd like to contribute this comment, completely on-topic, and relavent. :)

Nuclear power is an amazing tool. Sadly, it is a tool that we simply do not have the technological prowess to to control. Even sadder, this hasn't stopped us.

There is no way to assure safety when dealing with nuclear power, or nuclear concepts as a whole. We're still a long way from "cold fusion", and even then the danger will never be eliminated. We're dealing with the very basic building blocks of reality as we know it - it cannot possibly be safe.

Many countries turn to nuclear power a (relatively) cheap and efficient way to power their land. Many do not have a choice. For countries who do not yet have nuclear power, it has become a sort of "watermark" for the economic evolution of their country. This *has to stop*.

Nuclear power is *not* safe, and it never will be. There are lots of options - the most popular and well-known include Solar and Wind power units. Organizations like the EPSEA and Fraunhoer ISE have been pushing and making immense progress in the solar power field - proving it as a viable source of power. Wind power has been used since the dawn of civilization, and is so prevalent and useful now that companies like Wintec are popping up everywhere.

It's time we realize that nuclear power isn't a safe option. Not for us, not for our children, not for earth. It's that simple.

.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -

Wire Report Updated by jpowers · 1999-09-30 02:21 · Score: 1

It's getting worse...

--

-jpowers

Re:unregulated biowarfare research sounds fine to by evilpenguin · 1999-09-30 21:31 · Score: 2

It isn't nuclear power that's scary; it's radiation. Radiation, like the Ebola virus, fills us with irrational dread. It there, but you can't see it, you can't feel it, hear it, or taste it, but it can contaminate you and then you die!!

There are rational arguments against nuclear power, most of them economic: Fuel refining had such a high energy cost that plant operations only recouped the energy balance some time around 1980 (that's really a number pulled from my fundament. I read it from a book written by a DOE employee and I read it over five years ago, so give or take a 5 years, and just accept that my point is it took a long time -- I'd love it if you'd go look it up and tell me exactly). The plants are very expensive to run (although the industry claims this is mostly due to overregulation). The waste problem remains intractable (and thus expensive). Even so, the rabid "anti-nuke" feeling out there is a product of a primal fear, not of reason.

All of that said, my brother is a Navy Nuke and the one thing he is certain of is that he won't work in civilian nuclear power. He (and I guess a fair portion of the nuclear Navy) feels the civilian nuclear industry just doesn't have their act together.

As for the alternatives discussed above:

Oil is being extarcted faster than it is being made. It will run out, all other things being equal. I suspect, however, that the release of all of that carbon into the atmosphere will disrupt things enough before the oil runs out that it will finally dawn on us how stupid we are being. Same for coal. I would believe that our supplies of oil and coal will last for centuries. Why? Because we only go after easy supplies now. As those supplies run out, the price rises and it becomes economical to go after "hard" supplies. Such a thing happened to make pressurized water drilling economically feasible. Eventually the same will happen for more extraordinary measures.

At some point, though, I think the rising cost of that oil will finally make solar comepletely economical. It is quite possible to power your home and break-even within the life of a mortgage right now. That's not enough to make a bank or an industry happy, but that's not too bad. Solar and wind have one major technological problem. Batteries. They suck. But you need them or some such thing because the sun isn't always over your home and the wind isn't always blowing. Grid-interitied solar systems coupled with traditional power generation would really improve things right now. We could shut down all the nukes and a significant number of coal plants (the highest emission ones, perhaps?) if people put grid-interied systems on their homes that met only 10% of their energy needs. You can do that right now, today, for less than $10,000.

Personally, I'm very much in favor of small hydro systems. The huge Grand Coulee style projects cause major environmental havoc, but small community-scale projects cause much less and that harm is known to be less than the harm of burning fossil fuels. Such hydro system can only meet a tiny fraction of our energy needs, however.

As for radiation, yep. It's scary. But I think it should be impossible to get out of high school without knowing what radition is and how it interacts with living tissue. I think people should know that, like the Palmolive commercial, they "are soaking in it" every day of their lives. That their own bones are radioactive. They should well understand how and why exposure harms us and what kind of levels exist in nature, and how much exposure is dangerous. But then, I also think you shouldn't get out of high school without knowning how the bond market works, how to get a mortgage, how to balance your checkbook, and that Carson City is the capital of Nevada. Guess I'm a dreamer...

Dunno who'll see this post, since it ain't first.. by whitroth · 1999-09-30 21:58 · Score: 1

But, having skimmed through all the others, I've still got a couple of things to say...

first: criticality: this means that a reaction becomes self-sustaining. If it's not, you get a decreasing number of neutrons (like turning off the stove under a boiling pot of water). If it's in the right range, each reaction generates more-or-less an equal number, so it keeps on keepin' on. Where you get *more* neutrons (to "split more atoms") than you put in is what is know in technospeak as, "boom".

Criticality is significant, but the size is a factor. There's a nuclear reactor in Africa that's been running, on and off, for the last 90 million years. No, that's not fiction: there's a large uranium deposit, and the heat it generates in decay lets it slowly pool together, build up a big reaction, run for millenia, deplete itself, and repeat. Notice that there ain't been no "boom"

Secondly, and *really* important, is not "why humans were allowed to do this instead of machinery...any of you *ever* work in a *real* factory? I have. Would I trust unsupervised machines? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR BLOODY MINDS?
No, the *real* question is why it happened:
1) were they untrained?
2) were they trained inadequately?
3) whether 1) or 2) is true or untrue, were they being told to ignore some safety standards to meet a deadline?
4) or are they so understaffed/undersized ("downsized") that they were working for *way* too many hours, and so more prone to lapses?

I'd *love* to see *these* questions answered...and if any of 'em is true, I'd like to see management on a cross, where they belong, instead of the victims.

mark

LATEST UPDATE by shadow0_0 · 1999-09-30 22:30 · Score: 1

http://news.excite.com/news/r/991001/11/news-nucle ar-japan

More physics by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 22:39 · Score: 0

I don't think I seen all the /. articles, but there was a lot of misinformation and only a few good posts. So, so more physics.

Having uranium in solution start to undergo a chain reaction isn't all that farfetched. There is archeological/geological evidence of a prehistoric reactor which started when the concentration of water in a mineral deposit got too high. Of course, the concentration of U-235 in the uranium was higher then, than it is now, which it less likely to happen today.

Some uranium undergoes spontaneous fission, or muon catalysed fission all the time. So all uranium has a small "background" of neutron emission and production of fission products. Put this uranium in a moderator, to slow down the neutrons, and there can be trouble because the fission cross section for thermal neutrons is MUCH higher for U-235 than is the cross section for fission spectrum neutrons.

With the accident in question, what was likely happening is something like this. (I am assuming it was a solid "chunk" of uranium being dissolved.) Solid is sitting at the bottom of the tank of nitric acid. At first, slightly more than half of the neutrons coming from spontaneous fission escape the reactor because neutrons emitted in directions away from the bulk of the solution will escape (almost a 2 Pi geometry). As dissolution proceeds, uranium atoms move by diffusion, convection and other mass transport into the bulk of the liquid. The farther the uranium atoms are from the bottom and sides of the tank, the closer their geometry is to having 4 Pi moderation. Some combination of concentration gradient and moderation allows a multiplication factor (k) slightly greater than 1. At this point, the neutron population starts going up exponentially. After a bit of multiplication takes place, we start to see macroscopic changes: we have a measurable photon flux (x-rays, gamma rays), we have a measurable neutron flux, we have a measurable temperature increase in the water, ... With the increased heat, we see more convection and the water starts to expand, lowering its moderation properties. After a while, changes in the uranium concentration, fission products with BIG cross sections (Xe) concentration, water density changes, causet he multiplication factor to drop to exactly 1. We have a self-sustaining nuclear reaction at some neutron flux. What flux, I don't know. I used to work at a research reactor where full power was 10E12 n/cmE2 s. This was enough to heat the water to about 50C and produced a faint blue glow about the core.

The Japanese apparently were successful in lowering the solvent level in the tank, resulting in much lower levels of neutron moderation, and a big drop in reaction rate.

As far as radiatioactivity released to the atmosphere goes, very little of this radioactivity is present as a radioactive gas. There will be some radioactive iodine and xenon released, which are both gases. But most of the radioactivity released to the atmosphere will be aerosol, adsorbed radioactive atoms on dust particles.

So, keep the dust from falling on you, and you eliminate a big chunk of the contamination problem. Hence the order to stay inside.

If they had anticipated an error like they made might be possible, it would have been nice to see them have emergency containers of disolved boron compounds, gadolinium nitrate, or other materials with BIG neutron absorbtion cross sections to poison the reaction.

Exceeds maximum annual adult exposure in 16 hours by anonymous+cowerd · 1999-09-30 23:05 · Score: 2

See:

http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/~lfz/rpchklst/5480_11.h tm

1988 U.S. Department of Energy DOE-5480 RADIATION PROTECTION FOR OCCUPATIONAL WORKERS:

Limit for working adults: 5 REM (0.05 sievert) / year

Limit for unborn child: 0.5 REM (0.005 sievert) / year

Limit for minor child: 0.1 REM (0.001 sievert) / year

So any adult a mile from the plant is getting his Maximum Recommended Annual Dose every fifteen hours; children go well over the limit in two hours.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Re:They stopped the chain reaction by CyberPup · 1999-10-01 00:36 · Score: 1

By reducing the cooling system (or by an overheating due to a failure) the water will turn into steam, thus its moderation properties are getting worse, the chain reaction will slow down.

That's a pretty big generality -- it depends on the temperature coefficient of the plant (which depends on the design of the plant).

The behavior you describe indeed exists in plants with a negative temperature coefficient (Alpha-T). It's also possible to have plants with a positive Alpha-T.

In any case, you make it sound like it's a Good Thing(tm) to drain the water in order to slow the reaction. That's way too simplfied. It was a viable solution in Japan because the heat generated by the reaction wasn't too bad (and because their other options to control the reaction were limited).

If I stumbled across a plant control room with horns going off, Homer Simpson asleep at the control panel, and nobody else around -- I guarantee I wouldn't be draining water out of the plant to stop the reaction -- that's asking for a meltdown -- the latent heat in the core needs to be removed long after the reaction is stopped.

-- CP

War by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:25 · Score: 0

I once had this crazy teacher that made us come up with a plane to effectively end the world. My group of buddies and I thought it would be a good idea to accidentially have a nuclear accident and sell glow in the dark produce. The produce would of course be ingested and do its job.

This may sound insensitive but.... by SmileyBen · 1999-09-30 02:26 · Score: 1

I hope this doesn't sound insensitive, but surely in the general scheme of nuclear disasters this isn't really an enormous catastrophy. There are warnings that it might yet cause a meltdown. If that happens then it will be a terrible, terrible, terrible event, but as it is it sounds like they've survived well and been lucky. Surely nobody thinks that 19 people injured (even killed) is a disaster of true nuclear disaster proportions?

(And yes, I know, that did sound insensitive...)

Re:The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by Tau+Zero · 1999-10-01 01:49 · Score: 2

Photons have mass-energy, and momentum by the equation E = pc. A one-MeV gamma ray has more mass-energy than an electron (511 KeV). This can give a little electron a very big kick. I'd quote you the equation for the conservation of energy and momentum if I could remember that part of PHY 242.

Beta radiation doesn't penetrate a significant thickness of metal. Gamma photons do; most of the electrons which produce Cerenkov radiation in a reactor are secondary particles produced by the primary gamma emissions.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

Re:More links and stuff by webslacker · 1999-09-30 02:26 · Score: 2

ABC News

CNN

Yahoo News

It also looks like the US military's going to be called in.

Re:What's the Blue Light? by Darksky · 1999-10-01 02:18 · Score: 1

no, but if you get that kind of ionization in the air, then you are also getting MASSIVE amounts of higher energy (invisible) radiation.

--
01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011

Re: Video report in Real Media by webslacker · 1999-09-30 02:27 · Score: 1

From BBC:

BBC RealVideo report shows damage to roof by Aliera · 1999-09-30 02:30 · Score: 1

http://news.bbc .co.uk/olmedia/460000/video/_461668_ghosh1300_vi.r am Damn, I hate to slashdot the BBC... Anyway, the report says that the explosion blew a hole in the roof, and gives an aerial closeup of a blurry something that may or may not be a hole in the roof.

don't dwell on the present. by Hobbes_ · 1999-09-30 02:30 · Score: 1

Someone said the exact same thing about the earthquake in Taiwan when the deathtoll was about four (at the very start).

I would like to know how many KRads we looking at?

Re:don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by Audin · 1999-10-01 07:05 · Score: 1

I believe that the first H-Bombs derived about 80-90% of the effect from the fusion, but now it is a LOT higher.

Actually early H-bombs derived most of their yield (80-90%) from fast fission of the natural uranium outer tamper.

According to Dark Sun, "more than 75 percent of Mike's yield (or 8 MT) was from fission of the U238 pusher." This leave 2.4 MT generated by fusion. So, in essence these early fusion bombs were really massively boosted fission bombs. You just use the fusion reaction to generate fast neutrons to fission the natural uranium.

Later fusion bombs have much higher fusion components. This results in much cleaner bombs, as the fusion doesn't create much radioactive waste, I believe the cleanest H-bomb is still Tzar Bomba, the soviet's (and the world's) largest (50 MT i think) explosive device.

Re:Fuel limited only in closed systems by SEWilco · 1999-10-01 08:53 · Score: 2

Actually, I didn't mention nuclear power. There's a lot of fuel for that also, as there are uncollected radioactives everywhere. And as an S-type asteroid probably has an assortment of metals, there will be some with a lot of fissionables. As well as a lot of tritium and other possible fusion fuels on the Moon's surface.

Re:Fuel limited only in closed systems by SEWilco · 1999-10-01 09:16 · Score: 2

Oh, you still think that oil is from plants?

Well, no matter. There's a lot of hydrocarbons out there also. We discussed Titan hydrocarbons already. Comets have been observed spewing hydrogen and carbon for some time. Volatiles seem to have been driven out of the inner Solar System, so might have to send robots to Saturn to fetch some. Unless we use an Orion drive or fusion torch; then the travel time will be on a human scale.

Update on NIF by NovaX · 1999-10-02 09:51 · Score: 1

Though no one will read this, as the stories dead....

I just was informed that now NIF will be held back until 2004, for basic operation. Actually, its even worse. Since the funds were raided, they don't have the capital to get there, and these silly guys bs'ed enough that there over a year behind.

The reason is because of the managers again. Most recently, with the loss of the director of laser science for LLNL /DOE (explained after), others began looking into ways they could divert funds, etc without further resistence. With the Nova laser being removed, Allied Signal was informed they would not be paid anymore, and 50 employees were forced (by contract) out of their jobs and escourted out by guards. NIF desperately needs skilled staff.

(The director was removed as an anonomous informant noticed he had not recieved his PhD. This was not illegal, and many scientists are hired while working on them. Instead, at such a high position a PhD was required, and it was one of the many clerical mistakes on LLNL's part)

--

"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue

Psychological by garver · 1999-09-30 02:32 · Score: 1

You are probably right, staying in or washing your hands won't help much, but I don't think keeping people out of radiation is why the gov't is asking them to stay in.

Nuclear incidents are scary to everyone. People freak out. Its kind of like flying vs. driving. Flying is much safer, but it doesn't seem safer (you hear everytime their is a plane crash) so people freak out in planes and not cars.

So, if I had to keep the public in control, I would give them something to do and let them think they are safe. Telling them to stay in and give them a prescription for helping themselves (washing their hands) help calm them down.

Sure, it isn't entirely forth-coming, but the last hting you need is a riot during a nuclear incident. That would only bring on curfews, patrols, etc. and more people in the danger zone.

"Nuclear technology" by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-09-30 02:32 · Score: 1

I agree with some of your points, but I have to wonder how knowledgeable you are, given your lumping of fusion (relatively harmless) with fission (potentially dangerous) in your phrase "nuclear technology".
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)

Criticality in layman's terms by dattaway · 1999-09-30 02:34 · Score: 2

Consider the atoms pretty much stable, like mousetraps with two ping pong balls on each in a large room. Throw a ball in the room and a few might set each other off. Now concentrate the atoms together into critical mass and the first ball thrown will trigger an ever growing action. Balls will be popping all over the place into a meltdown.

Re:The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by t-money · 1999-10-06 08:30 · Score: 1

I know this story is dead and this comment might never be seen, but I had to respond for the record. I'm sorry, but the "blue glow" in nuclear reactors is due to BETA DECAY not compton scattering. I am a Ph.D. candidate in physics and I do realize that photons have momentum. But a free electron and a free photon don't interact in such a way as to give the electron lots of momentum. Use your formula P = h_bar k and calculate the momentum carried by the photon. Now suppose that ALL of that momentum gets transferred to the electron. So divide that number by the mass of the electron and tell me the speed that comes out. it will be awfully tiny. Sorry, I don't mean to get personal, I just wanted to clear that up.

What is being done? by Outland+Traveller · 1999-09-30 02:34 · Score: 3

I know that I'm ignorant about what is going on over there right now, as I've only read the Reuters wire and a CNN report.

However, from this information it appears that Japan:

1. Is not prepared for this kind of disaster
2. Is not reacting to it in an aggressive fashion.

It is strange to me that given the repeated nuclear safety problems they have had over there that they do not have a plan in place to deal with a nuclear emergency. Why are they asking the US Military for aid? What kind of aid are they looking for? It seems like they don't even know what kind of help they need.

Also, the action that appears to be taken so far seems to contrast starkly with the Russian firefighters who gave their lives to try and stop the Chernobyl disaster. Some officials are saying that they don't know whether or not the reaction will become self sustaining or not. It seems to me that if there is a chance this emergency could turn into something similar to a reactor meltdown people should go in there and do everything they can to smother the reaction before it becomes any worse. Taking a "wait and see" attitude with something like has the possibility of frigthening consequences.

Some people have questioned the value of telling people to remain indoors. This was probably done to avoid a widespread panic that would clog all the roads and hamper efforts to bring the situation under control.

Perhaps we'll get more useful information in the days ahead.

Re:What is being done? by wnknisely · 1999-09-30 02:47 · Score: 1

I remember reading in Wired yesterday about the problems that Japan is having with Y2K issues, since nobody will publically say that another person is responsible - for that would cause too much shame in the culture. The article mentioned the slow response to the Kobe Quake as a similar example where uniquely Japanese cultural issues had hampered response time.

It seems to me that we might well be seeing the same sort of thing right now. (Japanese authorities don't seem to be reacting as fast or as hard as we might expect authorities to react in this culture (USA))

--
In illa quae ultra sunt

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by PagoPago · 1999-09-30 02:35 · Score: 1

I think it's too strong a statement to say that we will never be safe.

I think it is safe to say we aren't ready to handle it now, at least with our present technology and economic systems.

I personally, would like nuclear technology to be something that gets a lot of study, but that isn't implemented by economic interests. It just isn't safe to use in a system of economic compromises.

Besides which, why should we assume we need to use up all the fissionable material now? Maybe we'll be better capable of using it in a few centuries if we wait.

Natural selection? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:40 · Score: 0

Excuse me, but would YOU live next to a nuclear material processing plant? No matter how cheap it was or how many assurances I got that it was completely safe, I wouldn't go anywhere near it for any amount of money. I know enough about technology and people to know that both are fallible. Anybody that ignores the danger deserves whatever they get.

Re:Natural selection? by Darksky · 1999-09-30 03:01 · Score: 1

Japan has a large population and a tiny surface area. You live on earth, earth is bombarded by ultraviolet radiation from the sun, UV radiation causes skin cancer...if you get skin cancer you deserve what you get.

--
01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011
Re:Natural selection? by karnal · 1999-09-30 09:07 · Score: 2

guess you better not live near the highway, you might get run over.

Better not live near trees, might get squished by one in a windstorm.

Better not live near a river, it might flood.

Better not live on land, oops, earthquake....

Everybody's gotta live somewhere. Have a little compassion for those whom you call ignorant.

--
Karnal

Hydro-electric Power is not safe! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:41 · Score: 0

The world will not be a truely safe place until all Hydro-electric plants are closed! Thousands (Perhaps millions?) have lost their lives throughout the course of history due to catastrophic dam breaches. Of course, let's not forget the evils of the sun (It has been, of course, Mankinds greatest dream to one day destroy the sun...) and solar power. Ooooh! Windpower! With all those whirling blades something unpleasant is bound to happen... Personally I like my power from good-old coal burning power plants! With extra Sulfur! -- Just an A.C. enjoying his smoggy afternoon :)

What's the Blue Light? by minority · 1999-09-30 02:43 · Score: 2

The injured in the plant said they saw a 'Blue Light'. I know very little about nuclear. In fact, any one can explaint this to me?

p.s. As far I know, that 'blue' in Japanese should be color between Green and Light Blue.

Re:What's the Blue Light? by Darksky · 1999-09-30 02:46 · Score: 0

Nuclear reactions give off very high energy radiations, and blue (actually violet) is the highest enegry wavelength of visible light. If they saw a blue light, then they are going to be some very sick puppies....

--
01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011
Re:What's the Blue Light? by georgeha · 1999-09-30 02:49 · Score: 1

Cerenkov radiation maybe?

If the reactor is in water, you could get a cool blue glow as the neutrons hit the water exceeding the speed of light.

George
Re:What's the Blue Light? by Xenu · 1999-09-30 05:36 · Score: 0

The blue light is produced when the radiation interacts with the water in your eyeball. This usually means that you have just been exposed to a massive dose of radiation.
Re:What's the Blue Light? by quadong · 1999-09-30 05:37 · Score: 1

I hope you don't think that the blue light itself (being ever so energetic) is the thing that hurt them...
Re:What's the Blue Light? by quadong · 1999-09-30 05:39 · Score: 1

Not neutrons: #92
I believe this comment has all correct information.

Gotta get some lead. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:43 · Score: 0

The gov says stay in....haha....no, get some lead suits and run. This is serious....people should be allowed to flee....run...cause radations is very fast.

Article about 'Criticality' by "Zow" · 1999-09-30 02:46 · Score: 2

MSNBC has a good article on Criticality. Doesn't quite explain how it differs from a total meltdown or fision blast, but it does explain how it happens and gives a little history.

-"Zow"

Re:Article about 'Criticality' by vkire · 1999-09-30 05:33 · Score: 2

http://origin.msnbc.com/news/317609.asp?cp1=1#BODY didn't work for me.
Try http://www.msnbc.com/news/317609.as p?cp1=1#BODY instead.
KV

Ironic by HuangBaoLin · 1999-09-30 02:47 · Score: 1

I'm actually surprised that in a country like Japan, the most anal in the world, that something like this could happen. They don't cut corners like US contractors. (Part of their zero-defect rule) Guess no ones perfect. And you know that Japan is in trouble when they ask the US military for help. Even through all the earthquakes and other disasters, the Japanese have never asked the US military for help. Scary. My prayers to all those affected. (I hope people in the high-tech industry have enough heart to realize the human factor in these tragedies, rather than speculate how this will effect their industry, like they did with the recent earthquakes in Taiwan)

- Huang Bao Lin

a situation our country has never experienced by synaptic · 1999-09-30 02:47 · Score: 0

"The situation is one our country has never experienced," he told a news conference after an emergency meeting of the government, called by Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi who set up an emergency task force.

Hrm, Fat Man and Little Boy? Times sure have changed. Now they're nuking themselves.

Not the job to have... by malkavian · 1999-09-30 02:48 · Score: 1

Personally, I feel a tad sorry for the people who made this monumental cockup....
I've seen quite a few posts here saying that they're morons and deserve everything they get...
Well, I wonder just how many people on here actually have 100% perfection in everything they're doing...
As was said in the articles, they put too much Uranium in with Nitric acid...
This could have been from a faulty reading on the levels of acid, it could have been from a myriad different reasons, including just plain memory lapse...
The big difference with this as compared to most jobs is that in your every day office job, you can screw up monumentally, and not have more effect that gettin' called up in front of your boss, and maybe ending up out of a job on your butt...
A screwup in the more sensitive areas of the nuclear industry has the world looking at you, environmental catastrophe. And in the case of several people, you lose lives...
Rather than blaming, I just hope that someone finds out the real cause of the accident, puts a procedure in place, hires a few people to think up possible accident scenarios for the future... And makes things less likely to happen in the future...
I say "Less likely", because, no matter how small the chances of accident are.. There are still chances...
I really just hope that loss of life out there is as minimal as it can be, along with damage to health and environment...
I wish them all the best... And hope that things go well for them...

Just a thought, for what it's worth,

Malk

Re:first post! - here's my retribution. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:57 · Score: 0

Hmm... fireworks kill lots more people every year. Let's ban them too. Oh, and automobiles -- internal combustion engines that burn petroleum are NOT safe and never can be. For that matter, petroleum refining is NOT safe and never can be...

Fact is, nothing is safe. And nothing can be. Everything has risks. Nuclear power offers us the chance to concentrate the nastiness, rather than spreading the products of combustion in the atmosphere, or polluting our water with the nasty stuff that solar panel production produces. Sure, accidents happen and people get hurt, but does it really matter whether it's nuclear waste, oil or coal soot or trichlorowhatis that gave you the cancer?

Remember there is a normal level of radiation... and several hundred times that is safe for limited exposure.

China... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:18 · Score: 1

It would be South-Atlantic syndrome in Japan...

Nuke/Coal by dattaway · 1999-09-30 02:58 · Score: 3

The way I see much of the controversy over nuke plants is that they directly compete with coal plants, coal mines, and the many jobs coal creates, or the more expensive alternative, petroleum fired generators. Humans have an affinity towards energy, so it looks like we will be generating it one way or another. Pick your weapon.

A coal plant is opening up 15 miles from where I live. This is good for me as my payscale suddenly shot up as they were looking for workers. Tell you the truth, I would rather have a nuke down the street. It all has to do with the air I breathe and the massive amounts of ground being dug that were a great habitat for wildlife and hunting.

Not that I'm complaining, electricity will be very cheap for manufacturing plants. Good paying jobs will be abundant and those who already are employed will see property values skyrocket. The price of land has doubled for the last few years.

The Reason. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:20 · Score: 2

They were hoping Gojira would appear.

NCC Reports System Ran WinNT by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 02:59 · Score: 0

When Japan's new MS - Active Nuclear Monitor crashed and had to be restarted a possible hole was found in the software. According to key witnesses (Somebody named HAL?) the MS - Active Nuclear Monitor had a bit of a problem with the Active Size Monitor, so the sysops had to restart the service but a memory leak in WinNT caused some of the data to reside and some Active Size Monitor Reported the wrong size to Active Nuclear Monitor and then caused a small nuclear problem. NCC sources say there is a work around on Microsoft website....look some where in the knowledge base. Note other plants are running MS Active Nuclear Monitor also, but three have been testing the new KNukeMon 1.1.2. on FreeBSD. They say the system is like three hookers for the price of a doughnut? What ever that means. Stay tuned for more details.....

Radiation is your friend. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:23 · Score: 0

You seem to picture radiation as some magical force, that cannot be stopped...

perhaps parent should put infants in Microwave ovens to shield them.

It may STILL be critical! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:23 · Score: 1

Jesus that's a long time for an uncontrolled
reaction. For a comparison of other criticality
accidents and their durations check out:

http://www.enviroweb.org/enviroissues/nuketestin g/accident/critical.htm

Chernobal is still critical.....burning away
through the ground towards the water table.
Ain't easy to put out a nuclear fire.

Re:Anyone willing to do a criticality calculation? by jimhill · 1999-09-30 05:26 · Score: 2

The Japanese government is reporting that the solution in question is uranyl nitrate enriched to 18.8 weight percent U-235 in a concentration of about 370gU/l. There are about 50L of solution (16kg of uranium) in a stainless steel tank with about a 50cm diameter and 3mm wall thickness, to a depth of about 26cm. Outside the wall is a 2.5cm-thick water bath.

k-effective for this is about 1.04. Removing the water bath lowers k-effective to about 1.0, so it's a good first step. If you don't understand any of the above, you may safely return to your state of antinuclear hysterical panic.

--
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus

Re:revising history by mu · 1999-09-30 05:27 · Score: 1

Not hydrogen implying fusion bombs. The bombs were uranium or plutonium based, I forget which, but they were fission weapons.

--
-Tat tvam asi.

Maybe I should stay under my bed till 0/0/00 :-P by Daniel · 1999-09-30 03:00 · Score: 3

Is it just me, or have we gotten..um..more disasters than usual this year? I mean..

-> Severe doughts on the eastern coast of the US. Floods in the midwest. Floods in the East from Floyd (a good bit of New Jersey and North Carolina was still underwater last I heard).
-> Three major earthquakes almost on top of one another: Turkey, Greece, Taiwan.
-> Political unrest and instability in Russia. Political unrest in the Middle East. Kosovo. East Timor. Other places that haven't gotten so much coverage (which I naturally can't remember)
-> More stuff I've forgotten.
-> This.

And the following events haven't even happened yet!

-> Massive civil disruption by Christian fundamentalists and cults of all descriptions who believe the end of the world is imminent.
-> Computeres miscalculating the date and causing planes to fall out of the sky, eletricity to shut off.
-> Microsoft releasing Windows '00.

Clearly these are Signs! The only thing for sensible people to do is to get a lifetime's supply of cookies and HIDE UNDER THE BED until the clock rolls over!

</SILLY>

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood a little..

But in all seriousness this has not been a good year. I think the only disaster that hasn't happened yet is launching of nukes -- or perhaps a tornado in downtown NYC.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!

3-eyes fish coming soon by vinh · 1999-09-30 03:01 · Score: 1

Accidents happen.. I don't really blame the guy who put more uranium than needed. (Assuming they don't hire morons to work in a nuclear factory!). Even so if they hired a moron, who's to blame, the moron or the moron who hired the moron? :)

Anyway, it's sad that a human error caused that accident. The japanese nuclear factory must be built very very solidely because of the earthquake zone, from an archetectural point of view. Ironic it "exploded" because of humans and not of nature.

Anyone willing to do a criticality calculation? by Anonymous+Shepherd · 1999-09-30 03:03 · Score: 2

For Slashdot?

Assume 16kg of high quality Uranium, reactor grade, and essentially unlimited amounts of nitric acid in solution.

I think that's what reports indicate happened.

Work into this that the workers actually saw the blue glow, and hypothesize that if it actually is Cerenkov radiation what minimum amount of uranium or nitric acid is required.

Thanks!

-AS

--

-AS
*Pikachu*

Cherenkov Radiation(Was: Re:What's the Blue Light) by El+Puerco+Loco · 1999-09-30 03:04 · Score: 2

It's the light emitted by water when it is bombarded by intense gamma radiation. the same thing you see in physics textbooks when they show pictures of nuclear waste under water. Uraniaum will not normally produce this, but when it fissions, most of the energy is emitted as gamma rays and xrays. the guys who were unlucky enough to see this are screwed, I don't think it's possible to survive standing in front of a nuclear pile that suddenly goes critical. They must have absorbed a massive dose, because it appears they started feeling ill immediately. Not a good sign.

^. .^
( @ )
^. .^

draining the water off.. by dickens · 1999-09-30 03:04 · Score: 1

Hopefully someone thinks of sending in a 'bot to do that soon...

Maybe they mixed ... by Thrakkerzog · 1999-09-30 05:29 · Score: 1

metric and english units!

Sorry, it had to be said! ;-)

Re:Cherenkov Radiation(Was: Re:What's the Blue Lig by laura20 · 1999-09-30 05:30 · Score: 1

Was chatting about nuclear plant accidents with a nuclear engineer a few years back, and his phrasing was 'if you see a blue flash, you are dead.' Because the flash means that it's gone critical, and the fact that you see it means it wasn't shielded (enough.) I wouldn't count on any of the workers surviving.

It's the US's fault. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:30 · Score: 0

After world war II, Germany and Japan were not allowed to have an army.

I guess that's why their economy is so good, no defense spending so lower taxes, or better civil spending.

Luddite to the core, I see. by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 05:33 · Score: 1

I've seen this comment a bunch of times, differing only in a few words, about lots of different things:

We're dealing with the very basic building blocks of reality as we know it - it cannot possibly be safe.

You could plunk this identical comment in a discussion about genetically modified plants, and it would fit right in. It's a nice little non-thought, a perfect mantra for Luddites. But enough of demolishing the political posturing.

Wind and solar account for only a minuscule proportion of the total electrical grid capacity. DOE figures show that solar and wind together account for only 19 megawatts of the US grid's 750000 megawatt capacity. Worse, they cannot be used for more than about 20% of total capacity before they will require additional backup generators to sub for them when the wind dies and the sun goes down. More than that and you get the likelihood of blackouts.

The problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittent sources and cannot be scheduled. You cannot use them to replace other generating capacity until you can store energy for use later. Pumped storage is expensive and kills fish (see the Ludington, MI plant's records) and batteries are expensive and require maintenance. Batteries are also prone to mishaps, and materials commonly used to make storage cells (like lead and cadmium) are toxic heavy metals. Millions of battery fire hazards with toxic emissions have the potential to be more troublesome than a few large nuclear installations; the smaller number of sites is always going to be easier to inspect and control.

Solar power is still rather expensive, and wind power kills lots of mechanics; they both fall prey to the storage problem. Coal power kills lots of people with sensitive lungs (mostly the old and the very young). Nuclear power in the USA is, by and large, pretty damn safe especially given the silly regulations under which most operational plants were built. We've learned a lot since then; we could build totally fail-safe plants today if we could get past the political obstacles. We could also have disposed of all the spent fuel sitting in pools at nuclear plants by now, except for the anti-nuke political activists who do not want to admit that the technical solutions will work. How about getting out of the way?

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

Physics of radiation by Crusty+Wizard · 1999-09-30 05:34 · Score: 4

Here's a brief description of the primary types of radiation and their relative harmfulness.

1) Alpha radiation. Alpha particles are helium nuclei, big and slow; they can be stopped by a sheet of paper, but if you inhale alpha emitters, they can tear up your lung cells. So don't do that.

2) Beta radiation. Beta particles are energetic electrons, and can penetrate a bit better than alpha particles, but you should be okay if you're in the next room.

3) Gamma radiation. Gamma rays are *very* energetic photons; these are the ones that'll get ya. You need a good amount of dense shielding to absorb these.

4) Neutrons. Energetic neutrons from radioactive decay both perpetuate the chain reaction, and cause direct damage like beta particles, only worse because they're heavier.

The people close to this one will probably have gotten a good zap of gamma radiation, and will be in a world of hurt. But unless radioactive *material* (such as the uranium itself) escapes into the surrounding air, nearby civilians should be okay unless there is inadequate shielding against gamma rays.

In a nutshell, this is Really Bad, especially for the people closest, but the Earth is not about to collapse into a molten ball...

This is REALLY BAD! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 03:17 · Score: 1

First off my inlaws live less than 100 miles from the site in Kamakura. Secondly my wife and I are going there for her little brother's wedding in three weeks!

I was there during the 1997 incident. What a debacle. They had a leak and fire, people got really sick. Citizens worry. So what does the government do? They take a school field trip through there a day later! Here I am watching NHK news one afternoon and I see all these little kids in their little yellow hats, with there teachers, strolling around the compromised plant! I think my brain actually locked up. I couldn't believe it. Put little kids in there to show everyone how safe it is.

I called my wife, here at work, and told her what was going on. "Why don't you check a Japanese web news site?", I say. Well according to Yahoo Japan's headlines, it is a "well, don't go outside for a while and it will be OK" kind of deal. Nothing to worry about. Lovely. Gotta go call my inlaws.....!!!

Criticality in solutions of heavy isotopes by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 03:28 · Score: 5

...is easier to achive than you think.

(Snarl, network here is on the fritz, apologies if this comes through multiple times - connection reset by peer before anything actually gets submitted, I'm assuming...)

Anyone working at a nuke plant, especially a fuel processing plant, knows this. This incident appears to have been caused by stupidity of truly mind-boggling proportions.

If you're ever working with heavy isotopes (i.e. fissionables) in solution, the water or other solvent in which the compounds are dissolved can act as a moderator, and the amount of uranium or other fissionable matter required for criticality drops precipitously.

I did a few summer terms at a research reactor at a university. This reactor was often used to create compounds for medical use as well as other research. Preventing this type of incident was discussed in one of the most heavily-underlined-and-boldfaced sections of text in the book.

Any time you have to work with heavy unstable isotopes in solution, it's imperative that you know exactly what you're dealing with. That means you need to know both the nuclear (cross-sectional) and the chemical properties of both solvent and solute, AND the shape of the container, AND the concentrations expected at any stage in the dissolution.

Those latter two are particularly counterintuitive - but are glaringly obvious in hindsight, as they're significant factors in the mean distance (i.e. free path) between particles of the heavy isotope in the solution, a key determinant in criticality.

To give an example of what can go wrong - take a beaker of water and drop in a spoonful of brown sugar. Pretend the sugar is fissionable.

At the start, you have a subcritical mass of brown sugar. Safe enough to hold in your hand. At the end, the sugar is distributed evenly enough through the water that even with the water's moderating effect, it's subcritical. Safe enough to work with.

Walk away from the beaker and come back in 5 minutes. Observe that there are regions in the beaker of varying concentrations. At least one of these concentrations will be the "right" concentration to minimize the mass required for criticality. If the volume of that region is large enough, it goes critical in that region and it's game over.

For an even better version of this game, imagine you can stir it quickly enough so that this is never a risk. Mix it in a baking pan, so that the liquid is never deeper than 1cm, and most of the neutrons fly out the top and bottom of the pan. Give it to your friend, who pours it into one of those nice flasks with the spherical bottoms. The spherical shape allows many more neutrons to be absorbed. Your last thought is that "Safe enough to work with" only means "safe enough to work with in this container". Game over.

Or just carelessly leave the pan under the fume hood over the weekend. Or toss it in the freezer, and discover that as it freezes, the capacity to hold the material in solution changes, and some of it precipitates out. In either case, don't expect to get any work done on Monday morning, though.

Of course, now that I've gone through the hard ways to have this accident (about which anyone working in this environment would still know), putting seven times as much solute in the solution would also be a good way to screw it up.

Scary thought: If they could see the Cerenkov radiation - and weren't looking at the tank - it means the radiation flux through the fluid in the eyeball was high enough to cause a visible blue glow. That's a lot of radiation.

Remember all those "how to build your own atomic bomb" plans, that all worked out to "this won't give you a nuclear detonation, but it'll make one unholy hell of mess"?

The Japanese have just become the test case. While we're not talking about levelling cities or nuclear explosive yield, in terms of the physics involved - an uncontrolled chain reaction in a critical mass - the Japanese have arguably just nuked themselves, in the same sense that the Americans nuked them twice earlier this century.

It's a banner week for Darwinian Stupidity in the sciences, folks. First we lose a $125M space probe because two engineering teams didn't know the difference between metric and Imperial measure, and then a couple of Japanese fuel processing guys manage to top our blunder by accidentally building and activating something that's the fundamental equivalent to the core of an atomic bomb.

Re:Criticality in solutions of heavy isotopes by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 05:02 · Score: 2

Moderator...
Just as a comment, I've heard that atomic scientists once used Cerenkov radiation to locate beams in cyclotrons... by sticking their heads inside the machines! I can't be sure of the truth of this or not (having no primary source), but it would be funny if the Doctor Science comment about "sticking your head into the beam of a linear accelerator" had some basis in fact.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

The Blue Light is Cerenkov radiation. by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 03:48 · Score: 3

Nobody's gotten this entirely right yet... the blue light is Cerenkov radiation, which is created when charged particles like electrons (NOT neutrons) move through a medium faster than light travels through it. (Obviously this cannot be done in free space, but it can in water, in glass, and other media.) Much like an object moving through air faster than the speed of sound creates a sonic boom, a charged particle going faster than the local speed of light creates a "photic boom". Just FYI, some electronic devices such as Travelling Wave Tubes work on not-dissimilar principles.

How do the electrons get moving so fast? When a gamma ray bounces off an electron, the electron can recoil at high speed. This phenomenon is called Compton scattering, if I'm not mistaken.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

Location an issue for many more dangerous things. by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 04:52 · Score: 1

There have been a great many bystanders killed in explosions of chemical plants and oil refineries in the last ten years or so; people live across the road from those installations too. It's not feasible to completely isolate everything that might be dangerous.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

revising history by slickwillie · 1999-09-30 05:00 · Score: 1

According to National Public Radio, Japan is especially sensitive to problems like this since the US dropped two hydrogen bombs on Japan during WWII.

Re:revising history by jimhill · 1999-09-30 05:37 · Score: 1

Dropping two hydrogen bombs on Japan during World War II was no mean feat when you consider that the H-bomb wasn't developed until the early Fifties.

--
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Re:revising history by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:38 · Score: 0

One of each -- Hiroshima was a plug design (I forget how they called it -- a piece was fired into a larger piece, allowing the reaction) and used uranium and Nagasaki was plutonium with an implosion device.
Re:revising history by jimhill · 1999-09-30 05:39 · Score: 1

One of each. Fat Man (Nagasaki) was a plutonium implosion device and Little Boy (Hiroshima) was a uranium gun bomb.

--
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus

"blue light"? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:03 · Score: 1

thats strange.. they said the workers saw a blue light. do they have windows controlling that place?

Too Much Uranium Hexafluoride? by morbid · 1999-09-30 05:38 · Score: 1

The question that should be asked here is : "why were humans (with their tendency to err) allowed to control a process when fail-safe macinery could have been used instead."

My sympathies are with the workers and their families, and the people in the vicinity exposed to the fall-out from this criticality incident.

From first impressions, it looks as if this could have been engineered out at the design stage of the plant/process.

HOWEVER, we must wait to see the findings of subsequent enquires.

Unfortunately, in this world, we learn from incidents rather than predictions.

Will we ever learn?

--
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.

Re: water by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:39 · Score: 0

Water will shield you (on the outside) from the radiation, but when there is a critical mass inside, the water provides more neutrons to sustain the reaction. Also known as a moderator.

Re:Cherenkov Radiation(Was: Re:What's the Blue Lig by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:41 · Score: 0

Blue light is du eto ionizing radiation. Lots of it.

They stopped the chain reaction by erichschubert · 1999-09-30 09:02 · Score: 1

They (finally) managed to stop the chain reaction by removing the cooling water.
The radiation levels dropped to a 5th afterwards. The two very seriously harmed workers are still in danger: they got as much radiation as you would get from an atomic bomb i've read.

Some "common knowledge" about nuke plants:
The water in common Nuke Plants is used to slow down the neutrons: if they are too fast, they will not keep the chain reaction alive. So if you remove the water, the plant will actually slow down the reaction.
This can also be caused by the water turning into steam, and is a nice fine-controlling and security mechanismn in high-pressure-nuke-plants (i don't know the englisch term, sorry)
By reducing the cooling system (or by an overheating due to a failture) the water will turn into steam, thus its moderation properties are getting worse, the chain reaction will slow down.

--
Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.

It's ironic that... by dcg · 1999-09-30 09:03 · Score: 1

...on the front page of this morning's Daily Yomiuri (an English Daily) is the headline "Ibaraki hit by major N-accident", and in today's weekly Washington Poston supplement of the paper on page 10 is a half-page advertisment by the Nuclear Energy Institute with the slogan "Healthy Air to Healthy Patient -- Nuclear makes it happen."

Ignorance by dcs · 1999-09-30 05:42 · Score: 1

The don't cut corners? Construction industry is one of the more corrupts in Japan, with close connections to the yakuza.

A few months ago a piece of the ceiling in a tunnel fell over a bullet train. It turned out to have been built underspec. They conducted a test on other tunnels, and found that 60% of them were built underspec.

When the japanese say don't have corruption, what they really mean is that they don't have it done illegaly (well, it was not illegal until recently).

--
(8-DCS)

Chernobyl isn't critical. by Tau+Zero · 1999-09-30 05:44 · Score: 2

Chernobal is still critical.....burning away through the ground towards the water table.

Not by a long shot. The PBS special on it some years ago publicly put the lie to that one. Some of the fuel did melt, but it formed a slag with the sand which surrounded the core and melted into glass. This glass flowed lower in the building, where it hardened (the reactor was not critical without a moderator, and the graphite moderator burned away).

The hardened mix of fuel, waste isotopes, cladding and sand was named Chernobylite. The PBS show had footage of a piece of a hardened flow being shot off by a Russian marksman, then being placed in a shielded container by a small wheeled robot. That stuff is hard as rock; it isn't going anywhere.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

More important than the accident on Japanese TV by stuartcw · 1999-09-30 09:12 · Score: 1

I live in Tokyo and I tuned into the NHK (National TV) satellite channel this morning to watch the BBC and ABC coverage of the accident. Between 8am and 10am they usually show news programs from the UK, US, Russia, Germany, Hong Kong, Phillipines etc in their native languages. Guess what was on instead? The Mets vs Braves baseball game!

Now this is quite normal for NHK to replace the news with sport but news is lifeline for non-native Japanese speakers and I expect that all of the stations above covered the incident.

I quickly logged on and watched the BBC coverage from their webpage and as of yet I have not seen that picture of the hole in the roof on the Japanese news coverage. Plenty of pictures of people waiting at the train station to see whether their train through the area has been cancelled.

As I write the weather report is on and it looks like the wind is blowing our way... and I am going shopping for a real sattelite TV tuner. Bye bye NHK..

Re:Fuel limited only in closed systems by Audin · 1999-09-30 09:20 · Score: 1

How do you propose to mine asteroids (a very good idea, though) without nuclear power? It's the only energy source dense enough and cheap enough to make such a venture feasable.

And there is more! by dcs · 1999-09-30 05:45 · Score: 1

A 7.4 earthquake on Mexico. I'm pretty sure it's all the bad vibes from these millenium sects followers... :-)

--
(8-DCS)

Re: water by quadong · 1999-09-30 05:46 · Score: 1

Could you please explain how water provides neutrons? The only ones avaliable are in the oxygen atoms, and they are tightly bound.

Fuel limited only in closed systems by SEWilco · 1999-09-30 05:48 · Score: 1

You're assuming the Earth is a closed system. It only is if we don't go asteroid mining...or if we don't succeed in creating fusion (if there isn't a water cycle in the Solar System, it only takes importing a little space ice to replace the amount of water we'd be losing).

don't confuse H-bombs with A-bombs by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-30 05:50 · Score: 0

Japan was nuked with A-bombs (atomic bombs). An H-bomb (hydrogen bomb) is much more powerful.

An A-bomb is used as a little 'spark' that sets off an H-bomb. H-bombs are really scary.

If Japan had been nuked with two H-bombs (not available in WWII anyway) Japan would still not have recovered. That much firepower on a state-sized island would have wiped out a majority of the country's population.

Slashdot Mirror

Japan Suffers its Worst Nuke Plant Accident Ever

283 comments