Poop Nuclear emergency declared at quake-damaged reactor - Page 52

googlegoogle · 12:36 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...reactors_N.htm

**loochy** · 03-16-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

He was a man who was ahead of his time.

He was? I thought he was a preteen.

**Rain Man** · 03-16-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy

He was? I thought he was a preteen.

You just think that because he's ahead of his time.

DJ's left nut · 03-16-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sofa King

well damn.

i had shit to do too....

Fortunately I keep constant tabs on 3 lucky supermodels I intend to take liberties with just prior to our imminent demise.

The rest of you philistines have nobody to blame but yourselves...

**loochy** · 03-16-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

You just think that because he's ahead of his time.

Sofa King · 03-16-2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Fortunately I keep constant tabs on 3 lucky supermodels I intend to take liberties with just prior to our imminent demise.

The rest of you philistines have nobody to blame but yourselves...

Interesting.

All i planned on doing was steal a pack of hotdogs and some street signs and blast outta town with the sunroof down on my 1984 Ford Fiesta.

But your plan is definantly better.

teedubya · 03-16-2011, 10:05 AM

Japan earthquake: Japan warned over nuclear plants, WikiLeaks cables show

Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal.

By Steven Swinford, and Christopher Hope 9:30PM GMT 15 Mar 2011
An official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in December 2008 that safety rules were out of date and strong earthquakes would pose a "serious problem" for nuclear power stations.

The Japanese government pledged to upgrade safety at all of its nuclear plants, but will now face inevitable questions over whether it did enough.

While it responded to the warnings by building an emergency response centre at the Fukushima plant, it was only designed to withstand magnitude 7.0 tremors. Friday's devastating earthquake was a magnitude 9.0 shock.

The news is likely to put further pressure on Japan's Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, who has been criticised for "dithering" over the country's response to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Panic started to spread throughout Japan yesterday following the news that a third explosion at the plant might have damaged the protective casing around the reactor core, increasing the threat of radioactive leaks.

The government was considering using helicopters to spray water over the Fukushima site to limit the spread of radioactive particles as part of its increasingly desperate attempts to keep the situation under control.

Meanwhile the FTSE-100 share index fell by 1.4 per cent as stock markets around the world slumped in response to a 10.6 per cent drop in Japan's Nikkei index.
Warnings about the safety of nuclear power plants in Japan, one of the most seismologically active countries in the world, were raised during a meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo in 2008.

A US embassy cable obtained by the WikiLeaks website and seen by The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed expert who expressed concern that guidance on how to protect nuclear power stations from earthquakes had only been updated three times in the past 35 years.

The document states: "He [the IAEA official] explained that safety guides for seismic safety have only been revised three times in the last 35 years and that the IAEA is now re-examining them.
"Also, the presenter noted recent earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for some nuclear plants, and that this is a serious problem that is now driving seismic safety work."

The cables also disclose how the Japanese government opposed a court order to shut down another nuclear power plant in western Japan because of concerns it could not withstand powerful earthquakes.

The court ruled that there was a possibility local people might be exposed to radiation if there was an accident at the plant, which was built to out of date specifications and only to withstand a "6.5 magnitude" earthquake. Last Friday's earthquake, 81 miles off the shore of Japan, was a magnitude 9.0 tremor.

However, a cable from March 2006 reported that the court's concerns were not shared by the country's nuclear safety agency.

It says: "Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency believes the reactor is safe and that all safety analyses were appropriately conducted."
The Government successfully overturned the ruling in 2009.

Another cable reported to Washington local concerns that a new generation of Japanese power stations that recycle nuclear fuel were jeopardising safety.
The cable, quoting a local newspaper, reports: "There is something precarious about the way all electric power companies are falling in step with each other under the banner of the national policy. We have seen too many cases of cost reduction competition through heightened efficiency jeopardizing safety."

The cables also disclose how Taro Kono, a high-profile member of Japan's lower house, told US diplomats in October 2008 that the government was "covering up" nuclear accidents.

He alleged that the government was ignoring alternative forms of energy, such as wind power.

The cable states: "He also accused METI [the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry] of covering up nuclear accidents, and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry." He added that the Japan's "extensive seismic" activity raised safety concerns about storing nuclear material.

Mr Kan was not in office at the time the nuclear warnings were made. He became science and technology minister in 2009 and prime minister in June 2010.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...bles-show.html

teedubya · 03-16-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teedubya

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ne....aspx?id=28211

Third Japanese reactor to load MOX
10 August 2010

Tokyo Electric Power Company's (Tepco's) Fukushima I unit 3 is set to become the third Japanese nuclear reactor to load mixed oxide (MOX) fuel after receiving approval from the governor of Fukushima Prefecture, Yukei Sato. The unit follows Kyushu Electric's Genkai 3, which started using MOX fuel in November 2009, and Shikoku's Ikata 3, which was loaded with some MOX fuel in March 2010. According to the Denki Shimbun, the 760 MWe boiling water reactor will be loaded with MOX fuel by 21 August and the unit will restart in late September.

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has so far approved the use of MOX fuel in ten reactors, but utilities must also secure approval from prefectural governments before they can go ahead and use the fuel, which contains plutonium recovered from spent nuclear fuel.

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.h....html#Chap_6_2

6. Proliferation and safety problems of MOX use

6.2.4 Accidents at MOX fabrication plants
Accidents at MOX fuel fabrication plants have occurred. In June 1991, the storage bunker of the MOX fuel fabrication plant in Hanau, Germany, was contaminated with MOX. It occurred after the rupture of a foil for container packaging in the course of an in-plant transportation process. Four workers were exposed to plutonium.29 This accident was the main reason the fabrication plant at Hanau was shut down.

In November 1992, a fuel rod was broken through a handling error, and MOX dust was released during the mounting of MOX fuel rods to fuel assemblies in the fuel fabrication facility adjoining the MOX facility in Dessel, Belgium. In the event of such accidents, if the ICRP recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure. A one mg release of plutonium can easily happen during various smaller incidents.30

Chicken Little or not... MOX could be a big problem and it's certainly worth discussion.

Here is where it states that 1mg of MOX is equivalent to 2,000,000 mg of uranium.

teedubya · 03-16-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Do you have any idea what the means? Or a source for that? Not that I or you would know what it means even if it were sourced.

I had already sourced it earlier.

**Dartgod** · 03-16-2011, 10:15 AM

It was my understanding that the reactors withstood the earthquake just fine. The problems all stem from the fact that the tsunami took out the generators and their ability to cool the nuclear fuel. Isn't that correct?
Posted via Mobile Device

**KC Dan** · 03-16-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod

It was my understanding that the reactors withstood the earthquake just fine. The problems all stem from the fact that the tsunami took out the generators and their ability to cool the nuclear fuel. Isn't that correct?
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes

**loochy** · 03-16-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod

It was my understanding that the reactors withstood the earthquake just fine. The problems all stem from the fact that the tsunami took out the generators and their ability to cool the nuclear fuel. Isn't that correct?
Posted via Mobile Device

THat is correct. More accurately, the batteries (3rd string electricity option) did not work.

Fat Elvis · 03-16-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy

THat is correct. More accurately, the batteries (3rd string electricity option) did not work.

The batteries worked, they just weren't designed to keep going for days. Usually, if the generators fail, they are back up within a couple/few hours. Since the tsunami took out the generators, all bets were off.

**loochy** · 03-16-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

The batteries worked, they just weren't designed to keep going for days. Usually, if the generators fail, they are back up within a couple/few hours. Since the tsunami took out the generators, all bets were off.

Yeah, they worked for what, 4 hours? I think they were supposed to last a little bit longer than that though.

teedubya · 03-16-2011, 10:24 AM

http://www.businessinsider.com/fukus...r-plant-2011-3

Fuel Rods Exposed In Reactors 4, 5 And 6; Four Reactor Units Now Have Core Damage

orange · 03-16-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod

It was my understanding that the reactors withstood the earthquake just fine. The problems all stem from the fact that the tsunami took out the generators and their ability to cool the nuclear fuel. Isn't that correct?
Posted via Mobile Device

Er, no. Here's a nice summary from yesterday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

I know this has probably been said before, but this helped me have a better understanding about why and how the nuclear reactors failed to cool down:

Quote:

After the earthquake hit, the first safety system to prevent a melt-down was activated. Control rods rose into the nuclear reactor to stop the nuclear fission— but the fuel rods were still hot. Because of the power outage that occurred after the earthquake, water was not circulated to cool down the rods.

The second safety system turned on, and the generator began spraying the rods with coolant. An hour later, that emergency generator stopped— possibly because the tsunami hit the country at that time.

The third safety system then turned on. This system converts steam traveling through the pipes into water. But the water level dropped, and temperatures continued to rise.

All thee safety measures failed.

A professor from Japan's Atomic Energy Commission, whom was involved in the construction of the Fukushima plants, said he thinks the cooling water somehow leaked from the reactor.

“The reactor's coolants must have leaked somewhere in the building,” he said Tuesday. “We thought we had taken adequate precautions for a tsunami, but what happened was beyond our expectations.”

The Japanese government warned 140,000 people to stay within their homes on Tuesday, and an estimated 70,000 people have been evacuated from a 12-mile area around the nuclear plant.

http://www.ktsm.com/news/breakdown-h...d-to-cool-down

Now, what's more likely - that the earthquake we know happened somehow broke something causing that leak, or that something completely unrelated and unrepeatable coincidentally took place at the same time?

03-11-2011, 07:35 PM
googlegoogle Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	Japan going Chernobyl <-original thread i got banned for. thanks idiot mods. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...reactors_N.htm Last edited by googlegoogle; 03-16-2011 at 12:36 PM.. Reason: na
Posts: 4,700

03-16-2011, 10:05 AM	#771
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9480002	Japan earthquake: Japan warned over nuclear plants, WikiLeaks cables show Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal. By Steven Swinford, and Christopher Hope 9:30PM GMT 15 Mar 2011 An official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in December 2008 that safety rules were out of date and strong earthquakes would pose a "serious problem" for nuclear power stations. The Japanese government pledged to upgrade safety at all of its nuclear plants, but will now face inevitable questions over whether it did enough. While it responded to the warnings by building an emergency response centre at the Fukushima plant, it was only designed to withstand magnitude 7.0 tremors. Friday's devastating earthquake was a magnitude 9.0 shock. The news is likely to put further pressure on Japan's Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, who has been criticised for "dithering" over the country's response to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Panic started to spread throughout Japan yesterday following the news that a third explosion at the plant might have damaged the protective casing around the reactor core, increasing the threat of radioactive leaks. The government was considering using helicopters to spray water over the Fukushima site to limit the spread of radioactive particles as part of its increasingly desperate attempts to keep the situation under control. Meanwhile the FTSE-100 share index fell by 1.4 per cent as stock markets around the world slumped in response to a 10.6 per cent drop in Japan's Nikkei index. Warnings about the safety of nuclear power plants in Japan, one of the most seismologically active countries in the world, were raised during a meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo in 2008. A US embassy cable obtained by the WikiLeaks website and seen by The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed expert who expressed concern that guidance on how to protect nuclear power stations from earthquakes had only been updated three times in the past 35 years. The document states: "He [the IAEA official] explained that safety guides for seismic safety have only been revised three times in the last 35 years and that the IAEA is now re-examining them. "Also, the presenter noted recent earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for some nuclear plants, and that this is a serious problem that is now driving seismic safety work." The cables also disclose how the Japanese government opposed a court order to shut down another nuclear power plant in western Japan because of concerns it could not withstand powerful earthquakes. The court ruled that there was a possibility local people might be exposed to radiation if there was an accident at the plant, which was built to out of date specifications and only to withstand a "6.5 magnitude" earthquake. Last Friday's earthquake, 81 miles off the shore of Japan, was a magnitude 9.0 tremor. However, a cable from March 2006 reported that the court's concerns were not shared by the country's nuclear safety agency. It says: "Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency believes the reactor is safe and that all safety analyses were appropriately conducted." The Government successfully overturned the ruling in 2009. Another cable reported to Washington local concerns that a new generation of Japanese power stations that recycle nuclear fuel were jeopardising safety. The cable, quoting a local newspaper, reports: "There is something precarious about the way all electric power companies are falling in step with each other under the banner of the national policy. We have seen too many cases of cost reduction competition through heightened efficiency jeopardizing safety." The cables also disclose how Taro Kono, a high-profile member of Japan's lower house, told US diplomats in October 2008 that the government was "covering up" nuclear accidents. He alleged that the government was ignoring alternative forms of energy, such as wind power. The cable states: "He also accused METI [the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry] of covering up nuclear accidents, and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry." He added that the Japan's "extensive seismic" activity raised safety concerns about storing nuclear material. Mr Kan was not in office at the time the nuclear warnings were made. He became science and technology minister in 2009 and prime minister in June 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...bles-show.html
Posts: 36,652

03-16-2011, 10:15 AM	#774
Dartgod Wasted away again... Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: in Margaritaville Casino cash: $7390000	It was my understanding that the reactors withstood the earthquake just fine. The problems all stem from the fact that the tsunami took out the generators and their ability to cool the nuclear fuel. Isn't that correct? Posted via Mobile Device
Posts: 51,122

03-16-2011, 10:24 AM	#779
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9480002	http://www.businessinsider.com/fukus...r-plant-2011-3 Fuel Rods Exposed In Reactors 4, 5 And 6; Four Reactor Units Now Have Core Damage
Posts: 36,652