Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #135 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:28pm

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:11pm:

The author of that Hawaiian article was a certain Dr Tom. I left a message asking how much he charged for treating sick horses because judging from his wacky report he was obviously a doctor of veterinary medicine rather than nuclear science.

Perhaps, I was wrong?

Perhaps, you didn't misread the article?

In what way is the article whacky/incorrect, considering what you now know?

Btw, it seems Tom Burnett has a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences and Physics.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #136 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:30pm

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:11pm:

The author of that Hawaiian article was a certain Dr Tom. I left a message asking how much he charged for treating sick horses because judging from his wacky report he was obviously a doctor of veterinary medicine rather than nuclear science.

I'm not even sure he's a real person....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #137 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:31pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 1:42pm:

Quote:

I think Godzilla can remain in the fairytale category, but this is clearly a realistic & possible scenario! [/color][/b]

The China Syndrome scenario is NO closer to 'a realistic & possible scenario!' than the Godzilla one is....

What the various 'ranters' who write those articles seem to forget is that the bottom of the pressure vessels are full of water, and as the fuel rods 'melt' the pellets drip one by one into the water pooled in the lower third of the reactor....and are cooled as they drip...

Gizmo - Now do you get it? This is exactly like climate denialists. They are free to let their imaginations run wild, and there is no way that you can counter nonsensical arguments.

Now you appear to understand nuclear power better than most. You must have an inkling of how frustrating it gets.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #138 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:41pm

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:31pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 1:42pm:

Quote:

I think Godzilla can remain in the fairytale category, but this is clearly a realistic & possible scenario! [/color][/b]

The China Syndrome scenario is NO closer to 'a realistic & possible scenario!' than the Godzilla one is....

What the various 'ranters' who write those articles seem to forget is that the bottom of the pressure vessels are full of water, and as the fuel rods 'melt' the pellets drip one by one into the water pooled in the lower third of the reactor....and are cooled as they drip...

Gizmo - Now do you get it? This is exactly like climate denialists. They are free to let their imaginations run wild, and there is no way that you can counter nonsensical arguments.

Now you appear to understand nuclear power better than most. You must have an inkling of how frustrating it gets.

Well, not everyone against AGW is a climate denialist though....

But I do understand....I get embarassed by some of the statements by the anti-climate change lobby...As I'm sure YOU do by some of the pro-climate change statements...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #139 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:48pm

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:28pm:

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:11pm:

The author of that Hawaiian article was a certain Dr Tom. I left a message asking how much he charged for treating sick horses because judging from his wacky report he was obviously a doctor of veterinary medicine rather than nuclear science.

Perhaps, I was wrong?

Perhaps, you didn't misread the article?

In what way is the article whacky/incorrect, considering what you now know?

Btw, it seems Tom Burnett has a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences and Physics.

Gizmo actually explained it well. From various independent sources, we have water in all 3 reactor pressure vessels and the spent rod pool in reactor 4. Temperatures were as follows:

Quote:

The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV on Unit 1 has decreased from 281 °C to 251 °C and at the bottom of RPV decreased from 134 °C to 128 °C. There appears to be a corresponding decrease in RPV pressure with a slight decrease in Drywell pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV of Unit 2 has increased from 177 °C to 181 °C. The temperature at the bottom of RPV was not reported. Indicated Drywell pressure remains at atmospheric pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV in Unit 3 is about 89 °C and at the bottom of RPV is about 114 °C. The validity of the RPV temperature measurement at the feed water nozzle is still under investigation.

Under those conditions, you simply can't get molten fuel rods. The zircalloy melts around 1300 C from memory and the Uranium Dioxide is almost refractory. It melts at around 3000 degrees or so.

Obviously with water containment, such an eventuality is inconceivable. Even at Chernobyl, a China Syndrome Hollywood type meltdown didn't occur.

Concrete melts at around 3000 degrees or so too, but it's a very viscous mixture even when it does melt. The phrase - there is water in the containment basement is not compatible with the term 'meltdown'

If there is contamination in the groundwater, then it has almost certainly come from what has boiled off with the steam, and from the white smoke that was released when parts of the fuel rods were exposed to air after the cooling water level dropped.

There was a report of Plutonium, but the media reports which quoted the whole text quoted that the levels were extremely low. Measurement techniques are very sensitive. With all the atmospheric detonations that have occurred, I somehow think it likely that we'd detect plutonium in water just about everywhere on Earth. The measurement techniques are extremely sensitive.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #140 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 4:29pm

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:48pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:28pm:

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:11pm:

The author of that Hawaiian article was a certain Dr Tom. I left a message asking how much he charged for treating sick horses because judging from his wacky report he was obviously a doctor of veterinary medicine rather than nuclear science.

Perhaps, I was wrong?

Perhaps, you didn't misread the article?

In what way is the article whacky/incorrect, considering what you now know?

Btw, it seems Tom Burnett has a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences and Physics.

Gizmo actually explained it well. From various independent sources, we have water in all 3 reactor pressure vessels and the spent rod pool in reactor 4. Temperatures were as follows:

Quote:

The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV on Unit 1 has decreased from 281 °C to 251 °C and at the bottom of RPV decreased from 134 °C to 128 °C. There appears to be a corresponding decrease in RPV pressure with a slight decrease in Drywell pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV of Unit 2 has increased from 177 °C to 181 °C. The temperature at the bottom of RPV was not reported. Indicated Drywell pressure remains at atmospheric pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV in Unit 3 is about 89 °C and at the bottom of RPV is about 114 °C. The validity of the RPV temperature measurement at the feed water nozzle is still under investigation.

Under those conditions, you simply can't get molten fuel rods. The zircalloy melts around 1300 C from memory and the Uranium Dioxide is almost refractory. It melts at around 3000 degrees or so.

Obviously with water containment, such an eventuality is inconceivable. Even at Chernobyl, a China Syndrome Hollywood type meltdown didn't occur.

Concrete melts at around 3000 degrees or so too, but it's a very viscous mixture even when it does melt. The phrase - there is water in the containment basement is not compatible with the term 'meltdown'

If there is contamination in the groundwater, then it has almost certainly come from what has boiled off with the steam, and from the white smoke that was released when parts of the fuel rods were exposed to air after the cooling water level dropped.

There was a report of Plutonium, but the media reports which quoted the whole text quoted that the levels were extremely low. Measurement techniques are very sensitive. With all the atmospheric detonations that have occurred, I somehow think it likely that we'd detect plutonium in water just about everywhere on Earth. The measurement techniques are extremely sensitive.

I'm sorry, where did the following phrase come from?
"The phrase - there is water in the containment basement is not compatible with the term 'meltdown'"

We seem to come back to that issue, when I can't see it in the article?

In any event, you are suggesting that given the "official" measurements are correct, then the scenario is impossible?

But, the scenario itself is possible -
"And just what is that worst-case scenario? "They're venting in order to keep the containment vessel from failing. But if a core melts, it will slump to the bottom of the reactor vessel, probably melt through the reactor vessel onto the containment floor. It's likely to spread as a molten pool—like lava—to the edge of the steel shell and melt through. That would result in a containment failure in a matter of less than a day. It's good that it's got a better containment system than Chernobyl, but it's not as strong as most of the reactors in this country."

And, it is possible that the offical figures are not correct, as the are a number of "experts" who are saying a meltdown is possible, including "Richard Lahey, head of safety research for this type of reactor at General Electric, which installed the reactors at Fukushima in the 1970s, says workers at the site appear to have lost the race to save the crippled No. 2 reactor.

The Guardian newspaper quotes him as saying he believes the reactor core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel and at least some of it is down on the concrete floor beneath.

This would mean in simple terms the accident is no longer a matter of melting fuel rods, but of meltdown."

I hope your scenario ends up being correct, but this other one is certainly not out of the picture.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #141 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 5:09pm

The National Academy of Science in New York just released a comprehensive study of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in which they translated and analysed over 5000 Russian papers.

The study shows that almost 1 million people have died so far from the CHernobyl radiaotion release.

Why does the IAEA prohibit the world's number 1 international health body (WHO) from conducting proper studies into radiological incidents?

And yet the official death toll from CHernobyl was less than 50 (LOL)

40% of the Eurpean landmass is radioactive.

I wouldnt eat food products exported from Europe - especially from Turkey.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16010 South West NSW Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #142 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 5:12pm Yes, but 'saying it a lot' doesn't make it true....
Back to top	"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition. It's similar to a strawman fallacy" Bobbythebat IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #143 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:17pm

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 4:29pm:

I'm sorry, where did the following phrase come from?
"The phrase - there is water in the containment basement is not compatible with the term 'meltdown'"

We seem to come back to that issue, when I can't see it in the article?

In any event, you are suggesting that given the "official" measurements are correct, then the scenario is impossible?

The water in the basement was reported previously. If there was water in that area, how on earth could it still be there if there was this lava like substance on the floor? You would expect massive amounts of steam and increasing pressure within the drywell if such a scenario had occurred.

Quote:

But, the scenario itself is possible -
"And just what is that worst-case scenario? "They're venting in order to keep the containment vessel from failing. But if a core melts, it will slump to the bottom of the reactor vessel, probably melt through the reactor vessel onto the containment floor. It's likely to spread as a molten pool—like lava—to the edge of the steel shell and melt through. That would result in a containment failure in a matter of less than a day. It's good that it's got a better containment system than Chernobyl, but it's not as strong as most of the reactors in this country."

And, it is possible that the offical figures are not correct, as the are a number of "experts" who are saying a meltdown is possible, including "Richard Lahey, head of safety research for this type of reactor at General Electric, which installed the reactors at Fukushima in the 1970s, says workers at the site appear to have lost the race to save the crippled No. 2 reactor.

The Guardian newspaper quotes him as saying he believes the reactor core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel and at least some of it is down on the concrete floor beneath.

This would mean in simple terms the accident is no longer a matter of melting fuel rods, but of meltdown."

I hope your scenario ends up being correct, but this other one is certainly not out of the picture.

This other scenario is just not credible given what we know about the fact that the RPV is full of water in all cases. Sure, the water is hot, and in fact boiling in areas.

Read Gizmo's post on meltdowns. At this stage, there is probably some material being thrown around by the boiling water inside the reactor. There might even be some of that material on the bottom of the RPV in 2 out of the 3 cases. What we certainly don't have is a lava-like substance that has somehow melted through the RPV, which is made of about 150mm thick steel. There is water in the concrete containment vessel, and this has most likely to have come from the weakest part of the cooling water pipework itself.

Nobody has been able to ascertain exactly where the water in Reactor 2 came from.

It's a very serious problem at this stage, but it's nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl was.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #144 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:20pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 5:12pm:

Yes, but 'saying it a lot' doesn't make it true....

true - but NOT saying does not make it false.

There is big difference between internal and ezternal emitters when it comes to determining the health effects of radiation exposure. Internal emitters (especially alpha emitters) is the hidden killer of the Chernobyl disaster.

Perhaps this recent study by the New York Academy of Sciences would interest you?

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #145 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:20pm Foolosophy wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 5:09pm: 40% of the Eurpean landmass is radioactive. The term 'radioactive' has a very specific meaning. Are you saying that 40% of the European landmass is radioactive according to that definition?
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #146 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:26pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:20pm:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages

Quote:

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums. The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #147 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:45pm

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:26pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:20pm:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages

Quote:

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums. The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback.

You point being?

muso - you need to explain why the WHO was not allowed to carry out a proper investigation on the Chernobyl disaster by the IAEA (whose job is to actually promote nuclear energy)

The Russians themselves have attributed almost 1 milion deaths to Chernobyl.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #148 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:09pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 6:45pm:

The Russians themselves have attributed almost 1 milion deaths to Chernobyl.

As a result of what? Thyroid cancer? I don't have the paper, but I understand that there was an increased burden of thyroid cancer of about 6,000. In 96% of cases, thyroid is survivable. It can be successfully treated. This 2009 paper that you mention is the first I've heard of with numbers of this magnitude.

Now Lung cancers are generally attributed to cigarettes. The death rate correlates well with the number of smokers. In Europe it accounts for approximately 1.2 million per year or 13% of all deaths.

Do you have a breakdown of the causes of death? Do they include suicides? Suicide rates in Russia are pretty high on a worldwide basis - about the same as in Australia.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:19pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #149 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:57pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 2:11pm:

Just for the Godzilla 'deniers'...

"Just don't call it a meltdown, some engineers say.

"Meltdown is a Hollywood term; nobody really uses it," said radiation safety specialist Bruce Busby of the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle. "What we are really talking about is core damage."

Core damage sounds bad enough, but the distinction does matter.

"Meltdown is what I call the 'Jane Fonda scenario,' " said nuclear consultant Lake Barrett, a former Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission engineer, referencing the 1979 movie The China Syndrome, in which a melting reactor core breaks through the containment barriers below it.

In such a meltdown, the fuel rods inside a reactor melt together into a mass, hugging the steel floor of a reactor chamber. In this Hollywood depiction, the process goes out of control, the hot fuel eats through the 8-inch steel floor, and goes all the way to China. It reaches the groundwater and spreads radioactivity for hundreds of miles.

In reality, "that's impossible; it didn't even happen at Chernobyl," said Barrett, referring to the 1986 disaster in Soviet Ukraine, the worst nuclear reactor disaster in history.

Busby calls the fuel-rod disintegration more of a "crumbling," where the discs fall apart. Others use different analogies.

"In reality, first (the rods) drip down to the floor of the reactor like a candle melting," Barrett said. "There is still water at the bottom of the reactor. That cools the fuel off.""

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2011-03-15-1Anuke15_VA_N.htm

Don't have any time tonight, I'll get back to this tomorrow.

But, like most aspects of this incident in Japan, there are possible &/or likely variations, like the following.

"(Corium) Relocation to the lower plenum. "In scenarios of small-break LOCAs, there is generally a pool of water in the lower plenum of the vessel at the time of core relocation. Release of molten core materials into water always generates large amounts of steam. If the molten stream of core materials breaks up rapidly in water, there is also a possibility of a steam explosion."

Of course, there are other scenario's, if the water isn't there!

Back to top

IP Logged