Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 23 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:12 pm
by 82_28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:23 pm
Japan has officially asked the UN atomic watchdog to send a team of experts to help in the current nuclear crisis, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano said Monday.
"Today, the government of Japan asked the agency to provide expert missions. We are in discussions with Japan on the details," Amano told IAEA member states in a closed-door technical briefing at the watchdog's Vienna headquarters.
As soon as the devastating earthquake hit Japan on Friday, damaging the Fukushima nuclear plant located 250 kilometres northeast of Tokyo, the IAEA made a formal offer of assistance to the government.
Japanese-born Amano described the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and the devastating tsunami it triggered as "a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions.
This has been one of the greatest natural disasters of modern times, the full extent of which is still becoming clear."
The events of the last few days were "truly unprecedented," Amano continued. "The modern infrastructure of a highly industrialized country has been dealt a devastating blow by the immense destructive power of nature. I send my deepest condolences to the people and government of Japan."
The giant nuclear plant of Fukushima was damaged by the quake, with two explosions hitting separate reactor units there.
But "the reactor vessels have held and radioactive release is limited," Amano insisted.
Earlier, the IAEA had issued a statement saying the Japanese authorities had reported that Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 had "experienced decreasing coolant levels in the reactor core."
Officials had begun to inject sea water into the reactor to maintain cooling of the reactor core, it said.
And sea water injections into Units 1 and 3 had been interrupted on Sunday "due to a low level in a sea water supply reservoir, but sea water injections have now been restored at both units."
by norton ash » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:27 pm
23 wrote:Perhaps it may make more sense if you shifted your perspective a bit.
From that of addressing the problem as a result of the 8.9 earthquake that originally created it, to preparing for the consequences of an imminent and minimum 7.0 aftershock that many experts are saying will follow.
I suspect that their efforts are geared more towards that latter objective.
by chump » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:34 pm
Japan - Exploded Nuclear Plant Uses MOX Fuel - Not Uranium! What is that? Just 2 MILLION Times WORSE than Uranium or Chernobyl's Meltdown!
I am so Astounded that the Japanese have as many Nuclear Power Plants that they have on the most seismic place in the world! How they did not have 100 different back up plans is beyond me! Why didn't they have their generators 50 feet in the air in case of tsunamis? I have thought of tons of questions regarding it all!
I am sadden by the tragedy in the first place, now the Man made tragedy is unfolding that is a million times worse than the natural tragedy!
We all know some of Japan's nuclear power plants are in trouble and one exploded.
What is NOT Being released is the FUEL used in that plant! I read about it and decided to research it! I am SHOCKED at what I found! This power plant meltdown can be 2 MILLION times Worse than Chernobyl! This could make the whole country of Japan uninhabitable, besides being carried around the world!
This is truly Sickening! In fact it really makes you wonder WHY they did not have 100 safety precautions in place! How dare they use MOX in a nuclear power plant in a place that is known for the biggest quakes and tsunamis! Besides Japan putting their plants right along side the ocean!
Read this whole post to understand the FULL ramifications of this Nuclear Plant Meltdown! There is a Power Point Presentation the UN put together for MOX fuel I downloaded it - but there is not a link to go to for it. I can't insert power point presentations here either.
Here is what I have found:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 823a7.html
FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Saturday loaded a nuclear reactor in Fukushima Prefecture with MOX, a controversial fuel made with reprocessed plutonium and uranium oxides, as it prepares to become the leading power utility's first facility to go pluthermal.
The No. 3 reactor at Tepco's Fukushima No. 1 plant will be the nation's third pluthermal facility, but only the first to be refurbished since the plant was built 34 years ago.
Tokyo Electric plans to activate the reactor on Sept. 18 and let it start generating electricity on Sept. 23. (2010)
***Recognize that plant name? Yeah, it is the one that blew up****
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
about Mox use in nuclear plants
http://archive.greenpeace.org/nuclear/t ... ipsumm.pdf
Green peace information about Mox going to Japan and their very strong concerns about it
http://brc.gov/Reactor_Fuel_Cycle_Techn ... uation.pdf
A Tepco - Japanese professor about Mox/uranium
http://www.inmm.org/scriptcontent/PNNL/ ... 0paper.pdf
DOE - info on Mox and transportation of it
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-3/main.html
The joint study cites a number of safety precautions necessary in the fabrication of MOX fuel relative to uranium fuel. MOX fuel emits higher gamma radiation and much higher neutron radiation than uranium fuel. Therefore, a separate fresh fuel storage facility designed for MOX only fuel containers for on-site use, and transport equipment for fresh fuel may be necessary. Dust resulting from MOX fabrication is also a concern for worker safety because of the dangers of inhaling plutonium (see article on health effects of plutonium).
Main Story: TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF MOX FUEL IN LIGHT WATER
REACTORS (LWR)/ THE REACTOR OPTION
1. How Does It Work? Major Differences From Conventional LWRs
Proponents of burning plutonium in mixed-oxide(MOX) fuel in LWRs
often say that since plutonium already exists in the burned
uranium fuel and is still burning, there will not be a big
difference by increasing the amount of plutonium a little bit.
The fact is that great effort is put to make it "not a big
difference."
In conventional LWRs, the uranium fuel has about 3% fissile
uranium-235 and the rest is non-fissile uranium-238. When
fissile uranium absorbs a neutron, it starts fissioning and
releases energy, emitting several neutrons. One neutron will
likely start another fission, creating a chain reaction, but the
other neutrons must be controlled so that it will not make a
massive reaction which will induce an uncontrolled chain
reaction. Control rods are designed to absorb the extra neutrons.
But some neutrons are also absorbed by the non-fissile
uranium-238 and this decays into fissile plutonium-239.
In the beginning, the plutonium content is zero and the fissile
uranium is about 3%. The fissile uranium decreases as they burn,
creating plutonium at the same time. At the end of one reactor
cycle, the content of fissile uranium is about 0.7%-0.8%,
approximately equal to the content of fissile plutonium-239 that
is created.(1)
In the case of MOX fuel used in one-third of a LWR core, the
plutonium content is roughly 4% from the beginning, which is
approximately 5 times more than that in the end of one cycle of a
uranium fuel. This is a significant difference in terms of
core nuclear physics.(2)
In a fast reactor, plutonium content of MOX fuel can be up to
50%. In the option to burn plutonium in CANDU reactors, the MOX
fuel content could be 100% core.(3) But this has not been
tested, nor is there any experience at all of burning plutonium
fuel in CANDU reactors.
All light water reactors are designed to burn uranium fuel.
Thus the nuclear physics of MOX fuels must be adapted to be as
similar as possible to that of uranium fuel. The MOX fuel
assemblies should be able to be operated as uranium assemblies
without any restriction to the level of power, performance or
safety.
#Various Types of Fuel Assemblies Necessary To Burn MOX
In order to achieve the same performance as normal LWR, the fuel
assemblies are made into various types with different plutonium
and uranium contents. Usually, MOX fuel assembly designs for
pressurized water reactors use three types of plutonium contents,
1.9%, 2.3% and 3.3%.(4) For boiling water reactors, four to six
different plutonium contents designs are used.(5) Another
difference is that, because of the intensity of plutonium's
thermal energy, plutonium fuel pellets cannot be of the same form
as uranium fuel. It could be in the form of a donut where the
central part is void to let the heat dissipate. But this type of
a fuel pellet is likely to collapse.(6) All these factors make
the fuel production extremely complicated and difficult, compared
to the one-standard uranium fuel for conventional LWRs.
#Reduced Efficacy of Control Rods
Control rods work by absorbing neutrons in the reactor core, so
maintaining stable power conditions. Criticality depends on the
small fraction of neutrons produced in the fission of uranium or
plutonium which are generated with a delay of about ten
seconds.(7) This time difference makes it possible to control
the power level by mechanically inserting additional control rods
into the core.
However, the fraction of delayed-neutrons in Pu-239 is about one-
third that of uranium-235, which means that the reactor is more
sensitive to variations in power.(8) In addition, plutonium
has a slightly higher propensity to capture thermal neutrons than
uranium. Therefore the efficacy of control rods is somewhat
reduced, and safety margins are lower. The additional demands on
control systems are largest for those plutonium fuels in which
plutonium-239 content is highest, as in MOX fuel using weapon-
grade plutonium.(9) For these reasons, the MOX fuel assemblies
should be placed away from the control rods.
The higher average energy of the neutron spectrum of MOX also
increases the rate of radiation damage to structural materials in
and around the core. This could cause embrittlement of the
reactor vessel in the end, which is another factor for safety
concerns.
--
#Danger of Losing Control of the Reactor Is Greater with MOX
Conventional LWRs are designed to decrease the reactivity when
the temperature rises. But when using Pu-239 as fuel, heating of
the core from an increase in reaction rate tends to increase the
reaction rate still further. This is called the positive
temperature coefficient of reactivity, meaning there is a danger
of losing control of the reactor by accelerated chain reaction of
fissioning.(10)
#Accident Scenario When Burning MOX
Accidents involving overheating and meltdown are possible in any
nuclear reactors. In such accidents, not only would readily
volatile noble gases, like iodine and caesium be released
to the environment, but a small portion of the actinides,
including plutonium and neptunium would be released. As the
activity of the actinides is substantially higher in the case of
MOX, the consequences of such severe accidents become more
serious.
When MOX fuels are used, the probability of having such serious
accidents or trouble would increase due to the high content of
plutonium in the fuel. Even if an accident is not a serious one,
it could become serious since even a small portion of the
inventory of actinides released to the environment could cause
significant radiological consequences.
According to a comparative analysis of possible consequences of a
core meltdown accident in the German Kruemmel nuclear power plant
with and without the use of MOX fuel(17):
*The radiation exposure from inhalation of radioactive materials
during the passage of the radioactive cloud is higher by several
dozen percent than if uranium fuel elements were exclusively
used.
*Radiation exposure through the route of inhalation of
remobilized long-lived actinide isotopes is more than doubled.
*The land areas to become out of use by long-term contamination
increases as the resuspension pathway is a limiting factor and
the greater part of the dose resulting from the pathway comes
from the actinides.(18)
by 23 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:40 pm
norton ash wrote:And dealing with the issue of which responders are on a suicide mission, or the implications of millions trapped on islands.
*sighs* Indeed. This is especially heartbreaking to me personally.
A lot going on, and many reasons to stay quiet, sad to say. This can only be a worst-case strategic-- and ethical-- dilemma.
I have never been a proponent of those reasons to stay quiet, though. Most governments act as benevolent patriarchies. Believing that lieing to its constituents is an act of love. Nohing can be further from the truth.
by nathan28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:45 pm
Nordic wrote:JackRiddler wrote:.
This should teach you not to fall for things (me, too: I fall for things). If you see a claim that one nuclear reactor meltdown is going to kill everyone on the West Coast in two weeks, it's easy nowadays to look up whether there's any plausibility to the scenario.
I didn't "fall for it". I just found it, and was sharing it. In fact, I was just looking at the direction of the plume, I actually didn't even notice that it was claiming to kill everybody on the West Coast in two weeks.
by JackRiddler » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:01 pm
nathan28 wrote:That said, Japan is different because so many people live on the Island. There will be a lot of deaths from radiation sickness, a lot of deaths from cancer, and a lot of displaced people. "Millions" wouldn't surprise me. It's goddamn awful.
Third, NOT ONE PERSON has mentioned that this is not the first nuclear disaster the Japanese have suffered, possibly b/c so many posters here are Americans. That map was, if anything, a combination of egocentrism and poetic justice.
Fourth, if it goes into meltDOWN it goes into the damn ground. After fires and other things that create fallout subside, that's it for anyone who doesn't live nearby.
Now, I have little doubt that the l/t effects of fallout are greatly underreported. We know that in Okinawa fishermen who were far from test blasts none the less experience higher cancer rates than would be expected, and IIRC the US gov't ended up settling a lawsuit with them.
And frankly the sources of radiation you're likely exposed to are things you probably don't think about. Construction sites release something like 10X more than normal. Smoking is going to increase your exposure by about 30-fold. Etc. Lastly, don't take spirullina or cholerella if you're worried about radiation thinking it's good for you unless you really think that liver failure is better than radiation poisoning.
None of this minimizes the simple fact that a huge portion of a very small island with close to 100 million people is now completely lethal.
by Laodicean » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:12 pm
Japan's nuclear problems pose little danger to U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission chief says
Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says there is 'a very low probability' of harmful radiation levels affecting any U.S. territories. Jaczko says the U.S. is providing technical assistance to Japanese officials in response to the crisis at Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear power plant.
The threat to the United States of a meltdown at a Japanese nuclear plant is minimal, the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday.
Speaking at the White House, Gregory Jaczko said there is "a very low probability" of harmful radiation levels affecting any U.S. territories, and that the government is providing technical assistance to Japanese officials in response to the crisis at Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear power plant.
"Right now, based on the information we have, we believe that the steps that the Japanese are taking to respond to this crisis are consistent with the approach that we would use here in the United States," Jaczko said. "We advise Americans in Japan to listen to and to follow the instructions of the Japanese government with regard to the nuclear facilities."
White House spokesman Jay Carney said that President Obama has been briefed multiple times since Friday's earthquake and tsunami. The White House counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, is coordinating the administration's response.
Officials also told reporters that the U.S. is well-equipped to respond to events like the one in Japan. The government reviewed its readiness to deal with natural disasters in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
"We believe we have a very solid and strong regulatory infrastructure in place right now," Jaczko said.
Amid calls for a moratorium on construction of any new domestic plants, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman said nuclear power must be considered as part of any energy strategy. He said 20% of all U.S. energy comes from nuclear power, and it accounts for 70% of all carbon-free energy.
"We do see nuclear power as continuing to play an important role in building a low-carbon future. But be assured that we will take the safety aspect of that as our paramount concern," he said.
Two experts from the NRC are on the ground in Japan, primarily working with the U.S. Embassy there and also keeping in contact with their Japanese counterparts. The United States stands prepared to offer additional support as requested, the officials said.
Monday brought not only continued concern over loss of life and the threat of a nuclear meltdown, but questions over whether the Japanese economy can withstand the devastating blow of multiple disasters. Carney said Obama has "full confidence in the capacity of Japan to address the economic challenges."
by nathan28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:26 pm
JackRiddler wrote:But in the meantime? What we say here about any ongoing political issue might actually have its teensy-quantum effect, but there is no solidarity demonstration we can attend or petition or whatever that calls on the disaster to slow down.
by Julia W » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:37 pm
by 82_28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:47 pm
by JackRiddler » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:52 pm
nathan28 wrote:JackRiddler wrote:But in the meantime? What we say here about any ongoing political issue might actually have its teensy-quantum effect, but there is no solidarity demonstration we can attend or petition or whatever that calls on the disaster to slow down.
That doesn't exclude the need for solidarity, though. And you (the impersonal you, not you, Riddler) don't show that by trying to claim the disaster for your own. That's panic-infotainment and because real people are going to die in very large numbers it borders on obscenity to engage in it... Stop that. This is a real problem with real effects and real victims, not a phantasmagoric one that only impacts someone on the other side of the world's pituitary gland.
by 82_28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:58 pm
by Nordic » Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:00 pm
We sit here, watching something analogous to of the Towers falling on live TV, not with thousands but millions of people in them, and not in seconds but over the course of days.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
