• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Japan and the Nuclear situation

CNN reporting rising temperatures in reactor 1, radioactive water leaking into the ocean, and elevated radiation being reported in Massachusetts rainwater. Hype or cause for concern?
 
Gmash said:
CNN reporting rising temperatures in reactor 1, radioactive water leaking into the ocean, and elevated radiation being reported in Massachusetts rainwater. Hype or cause for concern?
Click to expand...

When radiation levels dangerous to humans are detected in a country other then Japan, then its time to worry.
 
EarlyMon said:
Site cleanup there is going to be very challenging.
Click to expand...

yes, hopefully not too much soil contamination or more importantly, water contamination

I wonder what will happen to the other plants... I hope Japan and other countries (China, UK, US) dont let this halt their own Atomic Energy programs to much... although it might prompt China to tighten standards
 
shadowninty said:
Plutonium found in soil in plant grounds :( :( :(
Click to expand...

Not surprising that the soil's contaminated - the whole site is going to need containment (soil, building remnants, the whole catastrophe) - the next questions will become: how to collect, how to process, how to store, how to transport to storage - and now comes the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) problem: where to store.
 
EarlyMon said:
Not surprising that the soil's contaminated - the whole site is going to need containment (soil, building remnants, the whole catastrophe) - the next questions will become: how to collect, how to process, how to store, how to transport to storage - and now comes the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) problem: where to store.
Click to expand...
Ocean trenches FTW :p
 
EarlyMon said:
Not really.

Potential for an accident in transport or storage is still too high.

Only solution for high-level poisons has been a straight shot directly into the sun.

And then, came the politicizing of the space programs - time lost we'll never regain.
Click to expand...
Dealing with nuclear waste has always been the biggest problem with nuclear power imo. Sticking it in a hollowed out mountain and not letting anyone near it for a few thousand years just doesn't seem like a well thought out strategy to me. I have always thought shooting it into space was the best option myself, but I suppose the risk of rocket failure is pretty scary as well.
 
EarlyMon said:
Site cleanup there is going to be very challenging.
Click to expand...
The size of Japan seems like an extra challenge, as it is so small, it will be more difficult to have a large quarantine area like there was/is around Chernobyl, where they have plenty of room.
 
shadowninty said:


Can this end up like Chernobyl?

No, it cannot. for several reasons.

Chernobyl used graphite as a neutron moderator and water as a coolant. For complicated reasons, this meant that as the coolant heated up and converted to steam, the fission reaction intensified, converting even more water to steam, leading to a feedback effect. The Fukushima reactors use water as both the coolant and the neutron moderator, which means that as the water heats up and converts to steam, the reaction slows down instead. (The effect of the conversion of water coolant to steam on the performance of a nuclear reactor is known as the "void coefficient", and can be either positive or negative.)

Chernobyl was designed so that as the nuclear fuel heated up, the fission reaction intensified, heating the core even further, causing another feedback effect. In the Fukushima reactors, the fission reaction slows down as the fuel heats up. (The effect of heating of the nuclear fuel on the performance of a nuclear reactor is known as the "temperature coefficient", and can also be positive or negative.)

Chernobyl's graphite moderator was flammable, and when the reactor exploded, the radioactive graphite burned and ended up in the atmosphere. The Fukushima reactors use water as a neutron moderator, which is obviously not flammable.
Click to expand...

Well unfortunately it has turned into another chernobyl.

Japan to raise rating of nuclear crisis to highest level - The Washington Post


Japanese authorities planned Tuesday to raise their rating of the severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis to the highest level on an international scale, equal to that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, according to the Kyodo news agency.
Click to expand...
 
If that report is accurate, it's the only other plant to get the same accident rating as chernobyl.

Radiation levels are reported lower than chernobyl, tho, at this time.

We'll have to wait to see if the impact matches or exceeds what happened before.

Meanwhile, yes, the place is close to a living hell.
 
EarlyMon said:
If that report is accurate, it's the only other plant to get the same accident rating as chernobyl.

Radiation levels are reported lower than chernobyl, tho, at this time.

We'll have to wait to see if the impact matches or exceeds what happened before.

Meanwhile, yes, the place is close to a living hell.
Click to expand...

Cheepers!!!

I am very concerned... :(

I guess all we can do is hope it comes right! :(
 
How much damage is all of the radioactive water being dumped into the ocean going to do? Is the food chain at risk?
 
Gmash said:
How much damage is all of the radioactive water being dumped into the ocean going to do? Is the food chain at risk?
Click to expand...

It really depends on WHAT is going in. Currently (I believe at least) only radioactive iodine has been found in the waters surrounding the plant. While it can have some pretty bad effects short term, thankfully its half life is only 8 days so it is in no way a long term effect. It would have an effect on the food chain that you wouldn't eat anything for maybe a month or two just to be safe and let the levels drop to negligible counts.
 
More interesting info:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.
Click to expand...
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American
 
^^^
yuppers, why i cant understand opposition to a plant in Cork harbour what with all the toxic shit there

_____________


No one has died for the radiation, the feet contaminated workers walked out of hospital
I reckon the IAEA will put it at 6
 
Did anyone see the article in the Wed (May 18) Wall Street Journal? (starting on page 1) Its a pretty interesting account of the first hours after the disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom